Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fife Health Board

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to assist the Fife Health Board to acquire central headquarters.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Premises in Kirkcaldy, for adaptation as the central headquarters for Fife Health Board, were acquired in June 1975. When the board's proposal was approved in principle in 1974, an undertaking was given that part of the cost of adaptation, as then estimated, would be met by an additional financial allocation. I understand that the board is at present considering the alternatives of adaptations and new purpose-built premises.

Mr. Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a long waiting list for orthopaedic beds in Fife and a great urgency for more geriatric beds? Until the new central headquarters is provided, a fair amount of hospital accommodation will be used for administrative purposes. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to assist the board in reaching a decision and getting the necessary finance to start the new building?

Mr. Ewing: To a certain extent my hon. Friend has got to the kernel of the problem. The problem is not so much the need for a new headquarters building as for geriatric beds and other urgent medical facilities. We shall give the highest possible priority to that, bearing in mind the need for a central headquarters building. We accept that the fragmentation in three different towns is not an economic proposition.

Teacher Training

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date in connection with his recent proposals for reductions in teacher training facilities and colleges of education.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date regarding the future of Craigie College of Education, Ayr; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I have received over 700 letters and petitions about my proposals, of which over 400 include references to Craigie College.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In view of the fact that the majority of Scots Members on the Scottish Grand Committee have expressed no confidence in the consultative document, will the Secretary of State say whether any impartial authority in Scotland has suggested that the highly efficient, popular, fully subscribed and purpose-built college of physical education at Cramond should be transferred to the hopelessly inadequate facilities at Dundee at a cost of somewhere in the region of £1 million?

Mr. Milan: I wonder whether there is any impartial authority in Scotland on anything. As I said in Committee upstairs, I shall take account of all the representations made to me.

Mr. Younger: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following his rejection by the Scottish Grand Committee last week, the people in these colleges expect him to adopt a completely new approach to his plan as expressed in the consultative document? Would he be prepared to look at the representations already made and to receive representations from local authorities which may wish to see him on the subject?

Mr. Milan: My hon. Friend has had a number of meetings and I, too, shall have a number in the next couple of weeks. Obviously, we shall listen to all the representations made to us. All I would say is what I have said already on a number of occasions—that there must


be a substantial contraction in the teacher training service in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Does not the Secretary of State realise that there is widespread opposition to the proposals in the consultative document among the staffs, students, boards of governors, trade unions and church leaders because of a lack of any educational case or even a financial case in that document? In view of the lack of confidence in the Scottish Education Department, would it not be better to set up an independent body to investigate the whole structure of tertiary education in Scotland instead of closing down colleges or merging them?

Mr. Milan: I cannot accept that criticism. Obviously, at the colleges affected by the closures there will be strong feelings against the proposals. There is nothing extraordinary about that. As I have said, however, there must be a substantial reduction in the teacher training system in Scotland—that is very much in the interests of the students—otherwise we will be simply taking on people to become qualified teachers when there are no jobs available for them at the end of the day.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while the people of Scotland are coming to expect more and more betrayals from this House, they will feel—and it is high time the Government recognised this—that the biggest betrayal of all is of educational services in Scotland? When can we expect the Secretary of State to give replies to the detailed points raised in Committee so that we can relay them back to the people concerned?

Mr. Millan: I reject the first criticism absolutely. We now have in Scotland the best pupil-teacher ratios that we have ever had. We have also eliminated part-time education for the first time for many years. Those factors should be taken into account.

Mr. Lambie: What representations has my right hon. Friend received on the consultative document from the General Teaching Council?

Mr. Millan: I am meeting representatives of the General Teaching Council on Monday 7th March, when no doubt they will let me know their views in detail. I gather that they have had a meeting and

taken certain decisions, but I am not aware so far that I have actually read the representations which they have made to me.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that his totally inadequate consultative document fails to grasp the educational opportunities which the temporary fall in pupil numbers presents? When will he produce a proper consultative document with the financial facts and with details of opportunities for new educational advancement and a scheme to spread the fall in numbers over 10 colleges, particularly three big ones—Jordanhill, Moray House and Dundee?

Mr. Millan: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his debut on the Front Bench at Scottish Question Time. That was a very well-prepared question. I wish that it was worth answering.

Mackerel Industry

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the development of the Scottish mackerel industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): Last year there were substantial increases both in landings and in first-hand sales for human consumption. It is too early to make a firm statement about 1977.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware of the gross over-fishing by Scottish boats now taking place off the Cornish coast? Does he agree that the industrial techniques which are being used can lead only to the bankruptcy of the Cornish mackerel industry in exactly the same way as they have already led to the bankruptcy of the Scottish herring industry? Has he any powers to deal with this problem? If so, is he prepared to use them?

Mr. Brown: I am always being told that Scottish fishermen are paragons of virtue and do not engage in any illicit or illegal practices. Apart from the recent prosecutions, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, included other than Scottish boats, there is no reason why boats should not fish legally for mackerel in the permitted limits.

Mr. Penhaligon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: That is a matter of opinion. It is one of the things under consideration in relation to future quotas under the common fisheries policy. Obviously, we want to conserve even stocks of mackerel, which are now becoming increasingly popular.

Mr. Henderson: I agree about conservation, but has the Minister studied the case last week when some of my constituents appeared in court in Cornwall? Does he intend to make any representations against the appalling fines levied on them there, about the fact that one of the magistrates indicated a preference before the case, and about the fact that the local fisheries officer had told the court that he was out to "get the Scots"?

Mr. Brown: I am not surprised at that further expression of inflammatory anti-English sentiments by the hon. Member. I regret any fisherman being found illegally fishing, whether he is a Scottish fisherman or not. It does no service to the fishing industry of this country if hon. Members will not oppose the idea of anyone fishing illegally.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not this episode prove conclusively that the well-being of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom is a matter for the United Kingdom and that the Scots, the English, the Irish and the Welsh have a common interest in getting a sensible fisheries policy?

Mr. Brown: Yes, there is no doubt that there will be increasing pressure on certain species, including stocks of mackerel, simply because of the reduction in the availability of stocks of other species. The Scottish fishermen are to be congratulated not only on the fact that last year they caught more mackerel in Scottish waters but, more important, on the fact that more of the fish are going for human consumption.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would not the Minister agree that incidents like this could become more frequent unless we can solve the problem of exclusive limits? Has he anything new to report on that? Has he any hope to offer that we might reach a conclusion in the near future in the discussions in the EEC?

Mr. Brown: It is asking the impossible, I suppose, to expect the hon. Member to

give any credit to this Government for anything, but we have made considerable progress with various conservation measures in the EEC. I should have thought that he would welcome that, because it is the basis of our policy. In discussions within the EEC we have even reserved our national interest.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view on moral grounds that one cannot argue from a Scottish fisherman's point of view for protection for the Scottish inshore fleet and at the same time deny the same protection to the Cornish fisherman?

Mr. Brown: That sounds so philosophical that I am not sure what my hon. Friend means.

Mr. Sillars: Just say "Yes."

Mr. Brown: If I knew what the question meant, I might be able to do so. There are peculiar, local, even unique circumstances about the method of fishing by people in Cornwall. I should like to see them preserved. I do not think that that is inconsistent with sound conservation measures outside the limits.

Glencoe

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Glencoe.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to do so.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the disreputable massacre inflicted last night on the Government's excellent Scotland and Wales Bill by Scottish Conservative and Scottish Liberal Members—I agree that he might find this difficult to answer—it would be equally disreputable to get rid of the local hospital in Glencoe? Will he accept that one of the worst aspects of the reorganisation of local health organisations in Scotland is the increase in centralisation, against which we must fight?

Mr. Ewing: After that supplementary question, I can imagine that there might be a desire in Glencoe to get rid of several local features, possibly at the next election. The hon. Gentleman received a copy of the consultative document published by the area health board, which is due to meet next on 18th March.


If there is any proposal to close the local hospital at Glencoe, that will come to my right hon. Friend and will have to be approved by him. The hon. Gentleman should not get excited prematurely.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that the Glencoe hospital covers a big chunk of my constituency? Can he at least assure us that when the matter comes before his right hon. Friend, the representations against the closure will be fully and carefully considered?

Mr. Ewing: Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister bear in mind that the massacre at Glencoe was a massacre of Scots by Scots? Is it true that it is called the "Glen of Weeping", after the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick)?

Mr. Ewing: One lesson that I have learned in politics is never to become involved in domestic disputes.

Mr. Younger: If the Minister will not go to Glencoe, will he go further and visit the Western Isles, where people are facing fares increases on the ferries which are greater than the increases allowed under the Government's policy? Are they covered by the Price Code, and, if so, what will the Minister do about the matter?

Mr. Ewing: That is a totally different question. If the hon. Member is so interested in the subject, I should have thought that he would take the trouble to put down a Question.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the massacre last night came about as a result of the actions of a few of my hon. Friends taking a principled stand on the matter, allied with a successful attempt by the Tory Party, acting in unison, whiplashed into the Lobby by the Leader of the Opposition, not on the basis of devolution but almost entirely in a desire to inflict an electoral embarrassment on the Labour Government?

Mr. Ewing: I can think of no better way to put that than the way in which my hon. Friend has just put it.

Housing Tenants (Neighbours' Complaints)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory duty is imposed on local authorities to investigate complaints from local authority house tenants regarding the conduct of neighbouring tenants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The investigation of complaints is one aspect of the management functions vested in local housing authorities by Section 149 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of neighbour trouble among council house tenants is growing at an alarming rate and that many tenants are living in a state of tension and misery? Does he agree that the housing authorities have little power in the matter and have no statutory right to intervene in cases where individuals are involved in noise disturbance and verbal abuse? Since parents are allowed to attend children's hearings and to attend committees dealing with school attendance defaulters, does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities should have the power to form committees or panels for people with individual complaints against others?

Mr. Brown: I can sympathise with my hon. Friend. This is one of the most difficult human problems facing housing authorities. Housing authorities do, however, have powers—I am not suggesting that eviction cures the problem—which are in my opinion adequate at present to deal with a human problem which should obviously also involve social workers.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister agree that the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) could be improved if he gave more encouragement to more Scottish local authorities to sell council houses to sitting tenants and thus give them more interest in themselves, their houses and their neighbours?

Mr. Brown: No. That is a doctrinal approach. With respect, I doubt whether


the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the problems in some housing estates—

Hon. Members: Disgraceful. Withdraw.

Mr. Fairgrieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having served on a Scottish—

Hon. Members: At the end of Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling, but perhaps he would be kind enough to wait until the end of Questions.

Mr. Brown: I shall repeat what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I said that I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has knowledge of many of the housing estates where the greatest problems are—[Interruption.] It is a more diplomatic way of saying that he does not know anything about the problem. I have already said that I have a lot of sympathy with authorities which are battling with this problem, but it certainly will not be solved simply by selling council houses.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As a fellow Celt, I appreciate the difficulty of being brief, but I would appreciate questions and answers being a little briefer.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Since investigating complaints requires housing managers, have the Government yet considered the report on housing management of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, which stated that it was appalled by the low level of professional training in Scottish local authorities? In view of that report, can the hon. Gentleman promise the House an early response to the recommendation that the central Government should become more involved in the training of housing staff?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, it was through the initiative and encouragement of this Government that the Scottish Advisory Committee was asked to treat housing management and, indeed, its improvement, including professional training, as a priority. Since the report was published only a week ago, I cannot yet give a response to it. But I treat this as a matter of urgency and I shall respond to it sympathetically.

Mr. Welsh: In reference to the difficulties of housing management, is the Minister aware—if he is aware of anything—of the desperate shortage of trained housing managers in Scotland? Will he give a definite assurance that he will take action on the SHAC report?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I shall respond to it as sympathetically as possible, but whatever problems we have in housing management they are Scottish problems created by an indifference of too many people to attempting to solve them. There is no political mileage in it for the Scottish National Party. Yes, we shall respond sympathetically and urgently, because housing management and its improvement is one of our housing priorities.

Rates

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the estimated level of rates in the current year.

Mr. Millan: For the present financial year I have nothing to add to the information given to the hon. Gentleman on 21st October 1976. For the next financial year I am confident that local authorities will react responsibly to the Government's advice that expenditure should be stringently controlled and rate increases kept to the minimum compatible with maintenance of reasonable standards.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the present level of rates is causing immense hardship to individuals, to industry and to commerce? As the Government only yesterday announced new proposals to restrict increases in prices, and as we already have controls on dividends, wages and rents, can he tell the ratepayers of Scotland why he has not put a ceiling on rate increases for next year?

Mr. Millan: It has been interesting, as information has come forward in recent weeks about proposed rate increases for next year, that the increases on the whole—although, of course, the situation varies from one authority to another—have been rather less than was originally forecast. For example, Glasgow yesterday stated that the proposed rate increase there might be only 3p in the pound and Monkland district said that there would be a reduction of 1p in the pound. I


believe, therefore, that authorities are paying attention to the exhortations that they have had from the Goverment to exercise due economy in the coming year and that that is the best way to proceed.

Mr. MacCormick: First, does the Secretary of State agree that he has a duty to explain to the people of Scotland that it was the Scottish Conservative Party which created the regional tier of local government in Scotland which has caused many of these problems? Secondly, does he agree that one of the worst features of Strathclyde at present is that it is run by the Labour Party? Thirdly, does he agree that the most successful local authority in Scotland to keep down the rates is the Cumbernauld district, which is run by the Scottish National Party?

Mr. Milan: I do not agree with the last two of those questions. On the first, I do not think that it is necessary for me to explain to the House such iniquities as are in the Local Government Act 1973 since the hon. Gentleman does it so coherently.

Nuclear Waste (Storage)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the granting of planning permission for the storage of nuclear waste.

Mr. Milan: In any such case the planning authority would no doubt wish to be assured—as I would, if I were to call the case in—that the nature and scale of the proposals were acceptable and in particular that the waste would be stored safely and without harming the environment.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable public concern which exists about the possible health hazards resulting from such storage? In order to set at rest public anxiety on this matter, could he give some indication of the criteria that would guide him in allowing planning permission for storage and in allowing planning permission for prospecting for possible storage sites?

Mr. Milan: That latter question is a a matter for the local authority, not for me. Unless a planning application is called in all planning matters are in the first instance for the local authority con-

cerned. It is not for me to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. Concerning safety and other aspects, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to one of his hon. Friends on 10th February indicating the statutory provisions under which I, as Secretary of State, operate at the moment and would operate in the future. In all these matters, I know that there is public concern and feeling.
On the current issue, all that is involved is exploration. There has been no request so far for permission to store nuclear waste. That would be a long way ahead, and there would be all sorts of hurdles and safeguards to be gone through before that happened. If we are to continue with the nuclear programme, and even on the basis of the existing nuclear programme, it is absolutely essential that we bear in mind that we must find long-term solutions to problems of nuclear waste. It would be in everyone's interests to find those solutions.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say anything about the discussions that the Government have had with the European Community on this difficult issue?

Mr. Millan: The particular exploration programme that affects the South of Scotland, for example, and other parts of the United Kingdom at present is something that is being done with EEC co-operation. It is not even a United Kingdom effort. It is an international effort, because there is a joint responsibility not only at EEC level but, I think, even wider than that, of all nuclear nations to find satisfactory solutions to the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. We approach this matter with the intention of having—as we have at present—the most rigorous standards of safety.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that in this matter and in the related question of uranium mining his assurance that he will have the greatest concern for the environment is very welcome? Will he also assure us that, as well as the safety angle, he will take into fullest consideration the views of local inhabitants affected, and particularly the structure plans which have been drawn up with such tremendous efforts in these areas?

Mr. Millan: Yes. Again, I have to have regard to all these matters. In the particular case of the controversy over Orkney, I do not think that I should say anything more at present, because, as I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises, in certain circumstances I might have a quasi-judicial planning function to carry out. However, I shall take fully into account all the matters that have been mentioned by hon. Members.

Mr. Monro: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I am very glad that he has made this reassuring statement to the people of Scotland in relation to test borings and nuclear waste? Will he also bring home to the Harwell laboratory the fact that it must not prospect and carry out boring operations without planning permission in the near future?

Mr. Millan: I think that in this case the local authority has taken the view—about which I understand that at an earlier point there was some dispute—that planning permission is in fact required. Certainly that is now what is happening. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that on some of these matters involving individual applications it is difficult for me to say anything without appearing to prejudge an issue that will ultimately come before me.

Mr. Sillars: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm with regard to the expansion of the nuclear programme that we are now looking for disposal sites because of the CEGB's programme? Will he also confirm that Scotland is well endowed with generating capacity for many years to come?

Mr. Milan: No, I do not think that I could say that, because, proportionately, Scotland has rather more nuclear power at present than have England and Wales, and that would certainly be true if the SGHWR or another generating station went ahead at Torness. This is not an English problem. Scottish waste is going to England for disposal now.

Mr. Thompson: Considering that the vast majority of the people of Galloway, and probably of South Ayrshire as well, are utterly opposed to having a nuclear dump in our hills, is it not the case that this scheme of test borings is a complete waste of time and energy because the

results will never be applicable in our hills?

Mr. Millan: I do not know whether I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Again, I do not want to prejudge the issue. However, as far as I am aware, the people of Galloway and South Scotland are at present happy to have the benefits of cheap nuclear power from Hunterston.

Russian Fishing Vessels

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Russian fishing vessels are at present fishing within 200 miles of the Scottish coast.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The latest information indicates that there are some 16 Russian fishing vessels currently within 200 miles of the Scottish coast.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we can be grateful for the steps taken to reduce the Russian fishing fleet, there is a real worry that as fast as the Russian boats are put out EEC boats will come in to take their place?

Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the work done in the introduction of a licensing system for non-EEC countries. That is something for which we are entitled to some credit. It is obviously in the interests of conservation to ensure that no country, whichever it may be, is able to exploit stocks to the extent that exploitation has taken place in the past.

Mr. Sproat: In this regard, when does the hon. Gentleman propose to introduce the order to ban the landing of ungutted haddock in Scotland's ports? What representations has he had on this matter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the producers' organisations?

Mr. Skinner: An Anglo-Russian chairman.

Mr. Brown: I should say, for the benefit—

Mr. Skinner: That is about as low as you can get.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: I should say, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for


Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that haddock has nothing to do with Russian fishing vessels. Seriously, however, agreement was reached at a meeting on 4th February. I understand that the industry, which is fairly divided on this issue, is having second thoughts. A meeting is to take place tomorrow, so we are still giving consideration to whether or when to introduce an order.

Mr. Henderson: I take the Minister's point that he is in favour of conservation on a non-discriminatory basis. What is his reaction to the Irish Government's proposal that vessels in excess of 110 ft. in length, from whatever country, should be prevented from fishing within 50 miles of the Irish coast? Is there not here the germ of an idea which could be developed for our own fishing industry?

Mr. Brown: I cannot win on this one, because of the blatant exploitation for vote purposes by the SNP. I should prefer it if hon. Members recognised that conservation measures have to be varied, perhaps, depending on the circumstances of each country. Therefore, that is the basis for the Irish proposals, and I would not dissent from what they have done.

Mr. Corrie: While accepting the conservation measures that the Government have already taken, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say what talks have taken place with regard to policing, the type of gear used and the sizes of the nets actually being used?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is one of the conservation measures that we have introduced. It is certainly a priority, along with the other conservation measures, because the size of nets is an important factor in our policy.

Dental Health

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent report commissioned by the Scottish Home and Health Department showing that Scotland has the worst record of dental disease in Western Europe.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The most recent relevant report is that published in 1974 on "Adult Dental Health in Scotland

1972". It records that in Scotland 44 per cent. of adults were without natural teeth as compared with 37 per cent. in England and Wales. No comparison is made with the rest of Europe, for which comparable statistics are not available. A number of measures have been introduced since the report which, it is hoped, will lead to an improvement in dental health.

Mr. Dempsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that according to medical opinion dental decay adversely affects the lives of our people? Is he aware that according to recent statistics Scotland has the worst rate of dental decay among Western European countries? Will he encourage local authorities to act, and will he assure them that additional funds will be provided from the Exchequer to enable them to do so?

Mr. Ewing: I certainly cannot assure any local authorities that additional funds will be available from the Exchequer for any aspect of policy. However, the specific point raised by my hon. Friend is really one of research. We have made arrangements for an advisory dental research unit to be set up in one of the three dental teaching hospitals in Scotland to assess the effective use of dental procedures and related health services in order to try to bring about a very much needed improvement in dental health in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: Is it not tragic that, almost 30 years after the foundation of the National Health Service, almost half of Scottish adults have no natural teeth? Given the failure of all advisory commissions followed by all Governments up to now, what reason does the Minister have for supposing that this new advisory unit will make any significant difference to the problem?

Mr. Ewing: Whatever steps we take in this matter, we must depend on the co-operation of the people themselves. If people do not take an interest in their own dental health, there is not much that any Government can do about it. As in so many other aspects of life, the responsibility is with the individual.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend recollect that in Kilmarnock a pilot study was carried out of the advantage of adding fluoride to the water supply, which showed that dental caries could be cut by


half? Will my hon. Friend further encourage local authorities to add fluoride to the water supply, and will he make some money available to see that this can be done as quickly as possible?

Mr. Ewing: The one thing that I know about Kilmarnock—my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not present—is that everyone there has his wisdom teeth. However, on the question of the fluoridation of water, we have asked the health boards—whose responsibility basically it is to encourage the local authorities—to draw this matter to the attention of local authorities again, in the hope that local authorities will give it the most serious consideration.

Escorted Prisoners (Escapes)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the last five years prisoners in Scotland have escaped from custody while being transported between prison and the courts.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On five occasions.

Mr. Johnston: Does the Minister agree that there has been widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom following the escape of William Hughes in Leicester and the horrible events that followed, and that if the Home Secretary had been asked about prisoner transportation security immediately before that happened he would probably have said that he was satisfied? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that in Scotland, as in England, the matter is being looked at again very carefully?

Mr. Ewing: Yes, Sir. I can tell the House with some assurance that since the Hughes escape we have had a look at the procedures for the transport of prisoners between establishments and courts and are satisfied that they are adequate. But we are interested to see the outcome of the Hughes inquiry, and if there are any aspects of that inquiry that we feel could be implemented in Scotland to increase security we shall take steps to implement them. We regard it as a very serious matter, and we have a close watch on it.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: As most prisoners on their way to and from the courts in Scotland are normally held in reception

boxes in Scottish prisons, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of answering Question No. 23, in my name?

Mr. Ewing: In a sense that would be unfair, but I can say that there have been major improvements to those reception boxes.

Mr. Fairbairn: When the Minister is considering this very important problem, in view of the excellent record that Scotland has in comparison with England, will he—not to make any nationalist point—advise the English that we have a rather good way of getting our prisoners to court and back again in custody, and that to transport them in individual taxis as is done in England asks for the problems which have tragically arisen?

Mr. Ewing: There is close liaison between the Home Office and the Scottish Office on all aspects of security. I am sure that the Home Office will be interested to see how we conduct our procedures in Scotland.

Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the allocation of money for the next financial year to Ayrshire and Arran Health Board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Under the terms of the interim report of the Working Party on Revenue Resource Allocation, the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board will receive an increased allocation for the next financial year. All health boards will be notified of their allocations as soon as possible.

Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement showing a substantial increase in the money to be allocated to the board next year will be much welcomed by my constituents? Does he realise that this is the first victory in the Lambie campaign against the Glasgow Mafia to get a fair deal for the people of Ayrshire and that I, too, welcome his statement today?

Mr. Ewing: I am not sure about that compliment. We have had a working party looking at the allocation of resources to the various health boards in Scotland, and it is as a result of that first look at the allocation of resources that the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board will receive


this increased allocation. I am very grateful for the complimentary remarks my hon. Friend made in the latter part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Corrie: Will the Minister assure me that some of the increase will go to the Island of Arran to look after the hospital services there, and that it will not all go to Central Ayrshire?

Mr. Ewing: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows about the massive expansion programme that is going on in my hon. Friend's constituency. Some of the increased resources will go to community medicine projects as well, but the use of the resources is primarily a matter for the health board.

Coupar Angus

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Coupar Angus.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Crawford: The Minister will be aware that Coupar Angus straddles one of the main oil routes from Aberdeen to the South. Is he also aware of the shocking state of the road and of the potholes in it and in the related roads? Will he instruct the Scottish Development Department immediately to give the Tayside Regional Council £500,000 which it requires to repair the road? We on the SNP Bench will not take public expenditure cuts from this Government or the rag tag and bobtail of the Conservative Party.

Mr. McElhone: I shall confine my remarks to roads. Expenditure on road maintenance is normally revenue expenditure, which is under the control of the regional authority. For capital expenditure on road works, including improvements, the region was given £3·4 million in 1976–77. The allocation for 1977–78 is £3·25 million. It is for the region to decide how it wishes to spend that money, either on improvements or on creating new roads.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to go to the village of Blairgowrie, very close

to Coupar Angus, and visit Mr. John McEwan, who is carrying out a massive study of land ownership in Scotland? As the information is available in the Scottish Office, will my hon. Friend now publish it so that we may see the exact power of the landlords and landowners in Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend. I shall take his comments into consideration.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, because of the particularly difficult weather conditions this winter, roads in areas such as that under discussion have taken a tremendously heavy hammering, as anyone who uses them must know? Will he give an assurance that in connection with oil-related development special consideration will be given to roads which are subjected to heavy traffic going to the oil areas—particularly the A94—in order to help local authorities in those areas?

Mr. McElhone: We have the extraordinary expenses allocation within the rate support grant for oil-related areas, but we are under expenditure constraints. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have increased the expenditure by a little for 1977–78, to the sum of £3·25 million for Tayside at least.

Devolution

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which ministerial posts in the Scottish Office will no longer be required if the Scotland and Wales Bill is enacted and a Scottish Assembly established; and what functions are attached to them.

Mr. Millan: The number of ministerial posts in the Scottish Office, as elsewhere, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fletcher: I am surprised that the Question was not transferred. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, with eight Ministers in the Scottish Office, Scotland has a greater direct involvement in government than any other part of the United Kingdom? After last night's vote, does he not think that he should reconsider the fact that if there is an


Assembly in Edinburgh Scotland's influence and involvement in the United Kingdom are bound to be seriously diminished? [Interruption.]

Mr. Milan: As my hon. Friend says, it is the supplementary question that should have been transferred. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There are only six ministerial posts in the Scottish Office, not eight.

Mr. Fletcher: What about the Law Officers?

Mr. Millan: They are not part of the Scottish Office. There is not likely to be any increase in the number of Ministers. There may be a reduction.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many people who are in favour of devolution in Scotland are none the less concerned about the great increase in the number of politicians and civil servants foreshadowed in the Bill, and that unless there is a clear reduction in the powers and scope of the Scottish Office and in his own position devolution will not be genuine but a sham?

Mr. Millan: There will be a considerable reduction in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State when the Bill is enacted. That will be reflected in the number of civil servants in the Scottish Office, and no doubt also in the number of Ministers who will remain as Scottish Office Ministers. But the latter point is not really a matter for me. One of the most interesting features of last night's vote was the way in which the Liberal Party ratted on its pledges.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems very curious for the Liberal Party to try to justify its shabby and unprincipled behaviour last night on the basis of the number of Ministers who might be talked about in a Question today? Is not this even stranger than the argument advanced yesterday by Liberal Members that they wanted a concession on proportional representation, which was advanced in the House and defeated? Are they not slightly mixed up?

Mr. Milan: I think that they are rather more than slightly mixed up. My impression yesterday was that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and

Peebles (Mr. Steel) and his right hon. and hon. Friends—for whatever reasons seemed sensible to them, but they were rather obscure to the rest of us—were anxious to betray their election pledges. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do that.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House is anxiously awaiting a further statement of definition of the Government's intentions in relation to the devolution Bill? In view of his support for the measure and the fact that it was in his manifesto for the last General Election, will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that he will vacate his own office of Secretary of State as a question of principle if the Government abandon the Bill?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that we are inviting applications for Secretary of State yet. As for a general statement, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear last night that we shall continue with the Bill tomorrow. There is a day's debate ahead of us, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, is looking forward to that.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the nonsense from the Liberals last night, given the support of other parties the Government theoretically had a majority of over 30 and that the Labour Party cannot evade its responsibility for the loss of the guillotine last night?

Mr. Milan: What I take into account in all this—and what will no doubt be reflected in any statement about the Bill subsequently made by the Government—is that the Bill now before the House had a substantial majority on Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCUSED PERSONS (DOMICILE)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate if he will make a statement on why, when and how accused persons may state their address as being care-of the sheriff court.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): This practice applies when an accused person is released on bail. Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 provides that all bail


bonds must specify the domicile at which accused persons released on bail may be cited for trial. The practice of specifying that domicile as the sheriff clerk's office has grown up over a long period of time and is used in many sheriff courts. The main reason for it is that it is administratively convenient for those concerned with the service of indictments. Recommendations were made in the Thomson Report to change the practice, and this is presently under consideration.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that on 28th January five separate accused persons in the sheriff court in Edinburgh gave their addresses as care-of the sheriff court? If this becomes general practice in Scotland, will not many people fear that too much emphasis is being placed on protecting accused persons rather than on protecting those who are the victims of criminal activity?

The Lord Advocate: I am aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Perhaps it would be useful if I referred him to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 21st July 1976, in which I canvassed the general principles applicable, including the point that the hon. Member has just made.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: While taking the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), may I ask whether this practice does not also hurt the interests of the defence, because the indictment is served at the sheriff court and the defence lawyer does not necessarily know that this has happened? Is the Minister aware that sometimes a very short time, perhaps only 10 days, is available to prepare the case and that the indictment could be lying at the sheriff court without the defence lawyer knowing? Is not this wrong from the point of view of both the defence and the Crown?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Lady has expressed a point of view that is without doubt held by some practitioners. I would have thought, however, that the majority of practitioners would find this a more convenient way of dealing with the matter, because a solicitor knows with certainty where he can get the indictment. When the indictment is served

on his client, it is often some time before he has access to it.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Lord Advocate has been good enough to tell the House the history of how the practice has grown up, but he also told us that the Thomson Committee recommended that it should not continue. Since this is one of the many recommendations of the report that would involve no finance and little legislation, will the Lord Advocate say when we can hope to see brought forward some of the sensible reforms proposed in that report?

The Lord Advocate: I have already indicated in previous answers that the Government have the matter under active consideration. Obviously, in such a large field as this, it is a matter of priorities, and priorities must be set in their proper context.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD ASSAULT COMPLAINTS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he has issued any recent instructions to procurators fiscal about complaints of child assault.

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Why were not proceedings taken against the headmaster who subjected one of my constituents, a primary school pupil with an injured hand, to corporal punishment? What kind of biased legal establishment do we have in Stirlingshire when the boy's father is fined £150 for shoving the headmaster and another of my constituents, an unemployed youth, is fined £40 for stealing a handful of potatoes, and yet Sir Hugh Fraser, a millionaire, gets off scot-free after cooking the company's books?

The Lord Advocate: I reject those comments in general, and I particularly reject the suggestion that there is any bias in the prosecution in that area. I have written at length to my hon. Friend about the case to which he has referred, and I hope that that explains the circumstances. As to what a father was said to have done, perhaps my hon. Friend can take up that matter with me at another time.

Mrs. Bain: Are not the procedures for dealing with child assault in Scotland greatly respected in other nations of the


United Kingdom? Can the Lord Advocate give an assurance that, when the report from the Select Committee on Violence in the Family finally becomes available, he will do everything possible to ensure that the recommendations are brought forward and that there will not be a repetition of what happened to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage?

The Lord Advocate: If any of the recommendations are applicable and appropriate to Scotland, I shall do my best to see that they are applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMARY APPEAL PROCEDURE

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the appellate procedure available to persons convicted of summary offences.

The Lord Advocate: I am aware of criticisms that have been made about the limited scope of the summary appeal procedure and I consider that some of these may have some justification. This, however, is presently being considered by the Thomson Committee and I do not consider it appropriate to anticipate any recommendations that it may make in regard to summary appeal procedure.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate accept that persons convicted in magistrates' courts in England and Wales can appeal for a new trial and that this has often led to convictions being quashed? Is he aware that in Scotland one can appeal from summary convictions only on matters of law, that this position is unsatisfactory and that in many cases it has led to grave feelings of injustice?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman has pinpointed an area in which there is a great deal of dissatisfaction that I share. In England there is a right of appeal in summary cases, under certain conditions, for a retrial. In Scotland there are two options. One is a limited right of retrial and the other is a radical change in the stated case procedure. I do not want to commit myself to saying which procedure is better, but there is much to be said for the former.

Mr. Corrie: Is the Lord Advocate happy with a situation in which one cannot appeal against a judgment in the High

Court on bail procedure, and whereby someone can be let out on a small sum of bail and commit offences, of the kind for which he has been indicted, before his trial comes up? Is the situation the same in England?

The Lord Advocate: I do not know about the situation in England, but in Scotland there is only a limited right of appeal by the Crown in any criminal case. In the case of indictments there is virtually no room for Crown appeal, and in the matter of bail that sometimes leads to rather extraordinary results.

Mr. Fairbairn: The Lord Advocate has wisely and generously admitted the shortcomings in the limitation on summary appeal procedure, but pending the report of the Thomson Committee and its recommendations cannot he suggest that there are sections in the Act that could be used to advantage by the Appeal Court in the meantime to go back to the original court?

The Lord Advocate: I take note of that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FATAL ACCIDENT INQUIRIES

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Lord Advocate when he hopes to publish the rules for fatal accident inquiries.

The Lord Advocate: The Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Procedure (Scotland) Rules 1977 (SI 1977/191) were published on 16th February 1977. They will come into operation on 1st March 1977.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the benefits that will flow from the new procedure?

The Lord Advocate: The rules should provide a new, detailed code of procedure that ought to be helpful to all those involved in fatal accident inquiries. They will come into force on the same day as the Act. The Act and the rules have the merit of removing doubts about the lawfulness of fatal accident inquiries being held into accidental deaths during oil operations on the part of the Continental Shelf that conies under Scots law. They will apply to deaths that have taken place before the operation of the Act and to deaths in legal custody. These are great advantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAWLER "JURID" (ILLEGAL FISHING)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to the case of Skipper Justesen and the vessel "Jurid" in which, while the skipper was being fined £20,000 in Lerwick Sheriff Court, the vessel was free to leave port and dispose of an illegal catch for £46,000; and if he will review the law and penalties appropriate to such cases.

The Lord Advocate: I have received a full report of this case from the procurator fiscal at Lerwick. Justesen was convicted of a contravention of Section 2(3) of the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and he was fined £20,000. The maximum fine that could have been imposed was £50,000. In addition to this penalty, the court has power to order confiscation of the catch and also of the gear. The problem in this case was not one of inadequate penalties. It arose because the court was denied the power to order confiscation of the catch and the gear by virtue of the boat's having left port before such an order could be made. The Act makes provision for the detention of a boat which is caught fishing illegally within British fishery limits until the proceedings for that contravention are completed. Unfortunately, in this case the power was not used.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful for that full explanation. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some idea of when he thinks that power may be taken to hold vessels to prevent them leaving, as happened on this occasion, and selling their catch for far more than the fine?

The Lord Advocate: Power already exists, but unfortunately the British sea fishery officers were perhaps not fully aware of its importance. Section 8 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 provides full powers to deal with such a situation. I have instructed procurators fiscal to give guidance on the importance of this matter to the British fishery officers.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that in this case it was an error of judgment by people in the locality rather than a deficiency in the law which led to the mistake?

The Lord Advocate: That would be a more accurate indication of the trouble in this case. It was not so much that the legislation was not there as that the people concerned were unaware of the power that they had.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 11TH MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Joseph Dean
Mr. Bruce George
Mr. Peter Viggers

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

PRESUMPTION OF DEATH (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Neil Carmichael, supported by Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr Robert Hughes, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. Russell Johnston, and Mr. Gordon Wilson, presented a Bill to make fresh provision in the law of Scotland in relation to the presumed death of missing persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 25th February and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Farr, supported by Mr. F. A. Burden, presented a Bill to amend the Diseases of Animals Act 1950: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th March and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) made a complaint on the ground of privilege about an article contained in The Journal published in Newcastle upon Tyne on 22nd February. I have given careful consideration to this complaint, but I have come to the conclusion that it does not raise such issues as would justify my allowing precedence over Orders of the Day to a motion concerning it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Housing Finance (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.— [Mr. Ashton. ]

SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL

Mr. Tim Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Lord President leaves the Chamber, may I take this opportunity of asking whether you have received any information of a change in the business for tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is on the border line.

SERVICE WIDOWS (EQUALITY OF PENSIONS)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class 1 who retired prior to 1st September 1950; to provide for equality of pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class 1 who retired between 1st September 1950 and 31st March 1973; to provide for the payment of such pensions from the National Insurance Fund; and for connected purposes.
I am obliged to the House for an opportunity to introduce a Bill under Standing Order No. 13. This subject has been debated from time to time in Parliament and on every occasion it has aroused sympathy but no action. I now put before the House a proposal that will convert the sympathy and compassion shown on all sides of the House into a parliamentary Bill. The anomaly that I am seeking to rectify relates to the payment of pensions to the widows of those who have served in the Armed Forces.
The widow of an officer who retired before 1950 receives a pension. The widow of a man who served in the ranks who retired before 1950 does not. This is indefensible and has been described as an "upstairs, downstairs" situation. I am seeking to rectify it in the Bill.
Traditionally, officers and men came from different classes of society and the way in which they were recruited and their terms of service recognised this. Widows of officers have received pensions for many years, but it was not until 1952 that the Forces Family Pension Scheme gave pensions to the widows of men below the rank of Warrant Officer Class I. The amount was one-third of the husband's pension, and it was increased in 1973 to one-half of the pension.
When the legislation was introduced in 1952 a cut-off date of 1st September 1950 was adopted. The widows of all Service men retiring after that date benefited from the new pension arrangements, but the widows of men retiring earlier were left out.
Service men and their wives can now look forward to a secure retirement on completion of their period of service.


This is entirely right and proper. Moreover, pensions of Service men and widows are increased from time to time to take account of inflation. Only one group—the pre-1950 widows—remains left out. As other pensions and benefits increase with the cost of living, the pre-1950 widows receive as a Service pension exactly what they have always received—nothing.
Service pay now allows Service men to make some savings and there is no doubt that living conditions for men and their families are better than they have ever been. Conditions for Service men who retired before 1950 were very different. Pay was comparatively low and there was no realistic chance of making substantial savings. Indeed, the expectation of life during two world wars was such that it would have been difficult for any serving man to make insurance arrangements or to provide for his old age by savings. All the savings of these men who retired before 1950 were tied up in their pensions that died with them. I have had many letters and representations from all over the country from widows who were shocked and horrified to discover that they were entitled to no pension.
In areas with a large Service population and many Service pensioners, there are widows living next door to each other whose husbands served in a similar rank, but while one gets a pension, the other does not. This is unfair and is seen as such by organisations involved with Service pensions.
A Minister once went on record as saying that if any pre-1950 widow suffered hardship it should be mitigated by supplementary benefits, by rent rebates and other provisions. But why should this be necessary? I am talking of proud people, who wish to benefit from their husbands' service, and they would prefer to receive a pension earned by that service rather than money that they regard as charity.
The widows in question are the last people to cause civil disorder and difficulty. They are women whose husbands have served through one or even two world wars—the very people who have helped to safeguard the freedom we enjoy today.
When the scheme was first introduced in 1952, there had to be a cut-off date, and I accept that 1st September 1950 was a proper date, but is it fair that widows who do not receive pensions should see other people who do receive benefits moving upwards, as on an escalator, with inflation while they still receive what they have always received—nothing?
Occasionally an abuse develops over the years that is acknowledged by Back-Benchers on both sides and even by Ministers who recognised it before they became Ministers. Everyone is sympathetic, but nothing happens. This has been the case for the last 20 years with the pre-1950 widows. Let us now put it right. In 1972 there were an estimated 30,000 pre-1950 widows, and the cost of giving them pensions was thought to be about £4 million a year.
May I make two points in regard to the cost? First, the people in question are among the least privileged in our community and are likely to be receiving supplementary benefits, rate rebates or other help from the State. Any amount given to them in pension will diminish the amount of help that needs to be given in other ways.
Secondly, my Bill has, as one of its clauses, a provision that it shall not come into force until an order has been made by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument. This means that there will be no immediate effect on Government expenditure if my Bill is passed. All I am seeking to establish at this point is the principle that pensions should be paid to the pre-1950 widows.
This is a completely non-party matter, and I am proud to have backing from a representative or spokesman of every party in the House as sponsors to the Bill. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Alan Lee Williams, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Stanley Newens, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. fain MacCormick, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. John Ovenden.

SERVICE WIDOWS (EQUALITY OF PENSIONS)

Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to provide pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class 1 who retired prior to 1st September 1950; to provide for equality of pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class I who retired between 1st September 1950 and 31st March 1973; to provide for the payment of such pensions from the National Insurance Fund; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th March and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin, may I make a very brief statement? The first half of our debate today, until about 7 o'clock, is the Liberals' Supply Day and the second half is the Ulster Unionists' Supply Day. Many right hon. and hon. Members have indicated to me that they wish to speak, but they will all get in only if we realise that these are abbreviated debates, and I am appealing to the House in general and not of necessity to the hon. Member who states the case for the respective parties in opening the debates.

Orders of the Day — REFORM OF GOVERNMENT

3.43 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Great Britain's economic performance is gravely hindered by a system of government which grants majority power to alternating minority parties; and calls for the reform of the voting system so that Parliament can represent and give effect to the wishes of the people.
It is entirely appropriate that this subject should have been chosen for the first debate in the aftermath of yesterday's great victory for representative parliamentary democracy by one of the parties that has no part in the two-party system in this country. I call it a victory for representative parliamentary democracy and not a defeat for the Government because that is the way I believe that parliamentarians should view last night's proceedings. Indeed, it is the case that, if the reform that I am proposing today were to be implemented, last night's vote, last night's victory for representative parliamentary democracy, would become again the natural order of things.
Governments ought not to consider that being beaten by combined votes in the House of Commons is a disastrous defeat. They should accept it as being part and parcel of the job of a legislative chamber. But if this is a legislatve chamber, and we are legislators, we need to go further. We have a right to participate. There is an acceptable devolution Bill somewhere


in this House; there is a majority for an acceptable devolution Bill somewhere in this House. But, because of the conventions of government, the House was dished up with a mess of pottage, without being given a choice of menu without even being asked whether it wanted its steak overdone, medium rare or rare. We simply had to take it or leave it. I hope that the Government will learn the lessons of last night and that we shall operate in future more as a proper legislative chamber.
There may be many reasons for wanting a change of method of government, but most important, and a pre-condition of all the others, is the general awareness that there is something wrong with the present method. If there is not that awareness, both in this House and, more particularly, in the country, there is no point in carrying on an argument for reform, but I believe that we fool ourselves if we think that the awareness does not exist. Whatever may be thought in this House about the adequacy of the present system of government, there is great scepticism outside.
The Kilbrandon Commission had a detailed attitude survey carried out. It was very well summarised in the minority report. It revealed a very high level of discontent with our political process. If one asks when the British people last felt themselves to be citizens of a well-governed nation, or when they last believed that their democracy worked well, one sees, from even more recent attitude surveys and opinion polls, that almost universally outside this House the trade of politics is held in general contempt. The reputation of Parliament and of parliamentarians is low.
It will be said, and I am sure the Leader of the House would say it if he were here, that it was always so. But that is an easy but dangerous answer and too complacent by half. Is it really an inevitable part of representative parliamentary democracy that its practitioners and its institutions should be held in such low esteem by the electorate at large? I do not think that it is and it is to that end that I wish to make some fundamental reforms.
Part of the problem we are facing is not unique to Britain. Professor Dahren-

dorf, in his Reith lectures published as "The New Liberty", said:
The progress of citizenship, of the right of association, of the autonomy of many social organisations and institutions, has led to a fragmentation of the political public so that representative democracy has been transformed into a gigantic and confused bargaining process between organised groups.
That is part of the problem that this House ought to face. How far are our institutions and our political system capable of dealing with it?
Faced with this massive change, our representative parliamentary democracy is impotent. That is not just a Liberal view but one that is widely shared by a whole range of political commentators, whether they look down on us from the Press Gallery in our daily deliberations or write in the more esoteric and academic journals.
I do not want to oversimplify the problems we face or their solutions. Both problems and solutions are highly complex. But I do not think that it is going too far to assert that a great deal of what is wrong with Britain today lies with her method of government, and that Britain is in a very similar situation to that which she experienced before the great Reform Act of 1832.
We have a system of government which does not measure up to the realities of a modern State or to the aspirations of our people, and we have to usher in a period of political and constitutional reform similar to that which occupied the half century following the 1832 Act. The reforms necessary are widespread, but this afternoon I intend to deal with only one—electoral reform. It is not necessarily the most important, but it is the key to all the others. Just as, in a chemistry experiment, a catalyst is need to bring about a change and to get a reaction between various chemicals, so electoral reform is the factor needed to break the constitutional log jam which is causing a great deal of our poor performance as a nation.
There may be many reasons for supporting electoral reform. The first, of course, is that it would do the Liberal Party a favour, and I do not deny that. It is an undoubted fact. Had proportional representation been in operation at the last General Election, there would


now be 117 Liberal Members of Parliament. That is
a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd",
as Shakespeare said. He did not actually say it about proportional representation but he would have if he had known about it.
The second reason for advocating PR is, of course, that it will be fairer. That is something which the British people understand. When they are asked whether they want a fairer electoral system, the vast majority of them say "Yes".
In a debate in this House on 25th January the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) said:
fairness can be said to be the last refuge of the wet."—[Official Report, 25th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1277.]
That is a notable remark in the annals of representative parliamentary democracy. But I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would think of, say, a Communist country which announced that it had just held an election and boasted that its Government had secured a mandate because three out of 10 of the citizens had voted for it. I ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to consider that. We talk a great deal about East European Communist dictatorships. We know exactly what we mean by that. We know what we mean by the words "dictatorship" and "tyranny". But I wonder whether there is a Communist dictatorship, apart perhaps from Czechoslovakia and Poland, where, if a free election were held under the auspices of the United Nations, the present Government would get a lower percentage of the votes than this Government got in the last election. Does not that say something for our standards of democracy and their standards of dictatorship?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I was making an analogy with Dr. Johnson when he said:
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".
I did not do so for the reason that Dr. Johnson rejected patriotism. On the contrary, he was a very sturdy English patriot. But he said that it was used and abused by the scoundrel. In the same way, I said the new level of com-

plexity was the last refuge of the wet because they in no way thought beyond that into all the other complex arguments which I adduced in the debate.

Mr. Pardoe: It strikes me that a better anology is the remark by Joseph Stalin when he asked:
How many battalions has the Pope?
because both convey that extreme totalitarian arrogance towards the wishes of the electorate at large.
Fairness is one reason why people might support electoral reform. There is certainly more support for it on that score outside the House. I ask hon. Members to consider whether a system can be said to be fair when it took 35,915 votes to elect a Labour MP at the last election; 37,771 votes to elect a Conservative MP; 40.777 to elect a United Ulster Unionist MP; 55,440 to elect a Plaid Cymru MP; 76,328 to elect a Scottish National Party MP; and 411,288 to elect a Liberal MP. I am aware that hon. Members who sit on the Liberal Bench are worth two or three other hon. Members in this House. But the proportions given in those figures are way beyond even my estimation of the qualities of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The third reason which might be advanced for electoral reform is that it is more democratic. What is representative democracy but an idea which is intended to ensure representation of the national will? That must mean that all views in the country are represented in this House in proportion to the votes cast in the country. The arguments advanced by many Labour MPs, particularly in the debate in January, amounted to saying "I know I cannot persuade the majority of my countrymen to vote for what I believe in. Therefore, I shall maintain an electoral system which allows me to do what I want." That is a negation of democracy.
The Leader of the House is fond of quoting John Stuart Mill. It was he who uttered that triumphant cry:
If you can inform the passion of the multitude against the self-interest of the few, you have the right to await the outcome with confidence.
I would suggest that many Labour MPs have changed that to "If you can rig Parliament so as to use the passion of


the few against the interest of the multitude, you have the right to do any darn fool thing you like whether the multitude likes it or not."

Mr. George Cunningham: In present circumstances, the likelihood is that an election would result in there being a large Labour Party, a large Conservative Party and a large, but perhaps smaller, Liberal Party in this House. Therefore, the Liberal Party would always be in power in association either with the Labour Party or with the Conservative Party, even though they had minority support. Although there are elements of unfairness, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in the present arrangement, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it would be fair or democratic for the Liberal Party, as a result of that system, to be permanently in power?

Mr. Pardoe: It is not true that electoral reform, PR, or whatever system one chooses, always produces coalition. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read "Adversary Government and Electoral Reform" edited by Professor Finer. The hon. Gentleman will find that there are many countries which have PR where coalition has not been produced. I agree that in the majority of cases it does indeed lead to coalition, and it is because it often leads to coalition that I support it. I support it because I believe that it is better that this House should perhaps suffer an undue influence by a moderate minority than an undue influence by an extremist minority.
Indeed, what the present system does is to hand to the extremist group, particularly in the Labour Party, a totally undue influence although, if they had to stand under their own semi-Marxist colours, they would never achieve a vote which would get them into this House at all.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can answer one question that has always puzzled me. If all these arguments are valid, why is it that the Liberal Party did not introduce this reform in the years between 1906 and 1914 when it had an effective majority and could have done so?

Mr. Pardoe: I would again ask the right hon. Gentleman and other hon.

Members to read the record of history carefully. I would ask them to read the book "Adversary Government and Electoral Reform", particularly the second chapter, to which I have already referred. That looks at the history of this matter carefully, and it is quite clear that a whole series of initiatives was taken by Liberal Governments in the early years of this century to get PR on to the statute book.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Will my hon. Friend also remind the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps in one of the most important parts of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—this system was introduced by a Liberal Government, abolished for extreme sectional reasons by a Tory Government, and reintroduced by the Tories in 1973 with the full support of the Labour Opposition of the day? In one of the most crucial places where minorities should be fairly represented, the Liberal Party was in the vanguard in insisting on PR.

Mr. Pardoe: We cannot allow the debate to be conducted between two right hon. Gentlemen. But I would say to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that Asquith was perhaps very sensitive about making constitutional changes without all-party agreement. His leaning over backwards to try to get all-party agreement on this was the reason why it did not get through the House of Commons at the time.
I also ask any hon. Member who believes that the present system is democratic whether it is democratic that there should be 380 hon. Members out of 635 in this House who are in A. P. Herbert's phrase "Non-MPs", and who, whenever they look at a group of their constituents, are unhappily aware that more than half of them voted against them.
Another reason in favour of electoral reform is that perhaps it is what the people want. I do not suppose that would be the view of many hon. Members in this House. But the fact is that since 1974 the opinion polls have shown a massive support in this country which has always been over 60 per cent. In the latest poll in The Sun, published only two or three weeks ago, 70 per cent. of the British people supported a fairer system, and indeed did so even when


asked the supplementary question "Would you continue to support electoral reform and a proportional representation system even if it meant that the party you support were not able to get an overall majority?"
I know that the Leader of the House is not particularly taken with opinion polls. All right. Let us have a referendum on this matter. It is a great constitutional issue. Incidentally, there is a danger in referendums being held if the only body in the country to decide when and what question is the Executive. It is a great instrument of power in the hands of the Executive, as de Gaulle showed.
One point which must be faced is that the two-party system is breaking up. The first-past-the-post system may have been appropriate as long as the two-party system dominated this House. But in 1951 the two parties polled a combined vote of 27½ million—79·9 per cent. of the electorate. That was their high point. In 1955 they polled a combined vote of 25½ million—73·7 per cent. of the electorate In 1964 they polled 24·2 million—67·4 per cent. of the electorate. The average for the two elections in 1974 was 22·7 million—56.9 per cent. of the electorate.
The two parties hope that the trend will not continue. They hope that the collapse of the two-party vote and the rise of a third force in politics is a temporary phenomenon. But I see no evidence that that is the case. I believe that it is a question of the two-party system being dead, but not lying down.
All these are reasons for electoral reform, but I wish to argue in other terms today. The essential link between poor economic performance and our electoral system is the one which I particularly wish to stress. The link may not appear direct or close to some—certainly not to those who wish to ignore it—but it is accepted by many people in this country who are not imbued with the political process.
I should like to quote from an article by Samuel Brittan "A Manifesto for 1975" in a publication by the Institute of Economic Affairs called "Crisis 1975". He said:
I make no apology for starting with proposals to reform the political market place which is now the main weakness in our national

life. On the one hand, a dominant minority of the electorate has too much influence. On the other hand, voters as a whole have too little choice.
The first two of his major recommendations for facing up to the economic crisis he went on to list as a change in the electoral system and fixed-term parliaments.
In an article in the Financial Times on 11th November, Samuel Brittan interpolated into a mock article—on what the Chancellor should tell the House as part of his budget—a firm recommendation on this point.
For those in the Conservative Party who may still have doubts, I propose to quote from a source nearer to home for them. Aims for Freedom and Enterprise issued a pamphlet entitled" Industry and Electoral Reform" by Sir John Foster, QC. In that article, he said:
Britain, the country with the most primitive electoral system, is also the country suffering the gravest economic problem in the industrialised West. The link is clear for all to see.
I do not claim that proportional representation is a cure, but the reform of our electoral system leading to the end of adversary politics is a pre-condition for economic regeneration. The problem with the adversary system is that winner takes all and that loser plays no part other than to criticise. There is, indeed, therefore an inbuilt temptation to manufacture disagreement and dissension even where it does not exist. We have seen that happen all too often, particularly in industrial and economic policies. Moreover, it does allow extremists in both parties to have undue influence.
Social Democrats in the Labour Party, who are not themselves red in tooth and claw, find it hard to understand how their Government can be considered extremist. This matter has recently been debated in the columns of The Times between the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Basically, it goes like this. The Social Democrats in the Labour Party —say, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science—are precisely the kind of people one could take to any multinational company's boardroom table and nobody would be scared by them. That is quite true. But they are being


continually manoeuvred by their own Left Wing towards the Left. That is especially true in opposition.
The cycle of political extremism in Britain goes like this. Labour goes into opposition. Most of the sensible people get on with doing sensible things. Only the very boring people are prepared to be bored by sitting on Labour policy committees toying with Marxist theories. The conference therefore receives nothing but the lunacies from the Left, and it passes them.
The Labour Party then comes back to power. The Social Democrats have committed themselves to the manifesto, because that was the only way in which they could preserve party unity. It usually takes a couple of years to get the lunacies out of the system and to get on with the job of sensible government. That is why we got into the nonsense of 25 per cent. VAT and then got out of it. It took the Labour Government about 18 months to learn that trick. Even so, the balance is continually being moved to the Left.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was right to point that out, but his answer is no answer at all. The right hon. Gentleman's answer is to create an extreme Right-wing or laissez-faire Conservative Party so that, by a series of lurches from left to right and right to left like a drunken sailor, somehow the Aristotelian golden mean will be kept. But that leads to total chaos. We change one policy for another. We have seen that with investment incentives, taxation, regional policies, pensions and, of course, local government reform. Not all that is in the past, because we are moving into another phase of incomes policy.
In the "New Inflation" Aubrey Jones wrote:
Clearly no policy will be effective and no organisation as the vehicle for carrying out a policy can survive unless there is broad acceptance by both the main parties in a two-party system.
But can that be under the existing rules? I doubt it.
I remind Conservative Members of a quotation from the Economist of June 1968 which referred to
those who cynically oppose incomes policy in order to embarrass the Government—we mean the Conservative Party".

We have seen incomes policy over the years as a ghastly tribute to the adversarial two-party system. I hope that we can stop the process dead in its tracks here and now.
Late last year the CBI published a document called "The Road to Recovery". Under the heading "The Role of Government" it stated:
There is a ground rule which is important above all others. In few industrial countries in the free world has trade and industry been subjected to such violent reversals of industrial and economic policy as in the United Kingdom. The prime ground rule must be the continuity and consistency of Government policy towards trade and industry whatever party may be in power—a bipartisan policy.
The Government's strategy depends on this, because, unless we can fill industrialists and potential investors with the confidence that these policies and this taxation are here to stay, we shall not get any of the investment that the Government so urgently require.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Liberal Party had been in a more influential position it would have substituted consistency over the last five years? If so, why did the Liberal Party vote for Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill but against Third Reading, and, if it was in favour of a statutory prices and incomes policy, why did it support the miners in 1974 in trying to defeat that policy?

Mr. Pardoe: The reasons that we voted against industrial relations legislation on Third Reading were explicitly spelt out in speeches from the Liberal Benches on Second Reading. We made clear that we were prepared to vote on the principle of the reorganisation of industrial relations law, but we felt that certain important changes were necessary in the Bill. We said that unless those changes were made, we would not vote for the Third Reading. We were utterly consistent in our views. It is not inconsistent for a party to state its reservations on Second Reading and then, if those reservations are not met in debate, to vote against the measure on Third Reading.
Our nation's poor economic performance and our electoral system appear to be intrinsically bound up. Even if the Leader of the Opposition hopes to obtain


an overall majority for the Tories at the next election, I must tell her that that will not solve the problem. Even if I believed that Conservative policies were right, which I do not, that would not solve the problem. To a certain extent, the Tories are condemned by their own document "The Right Approach". In that document, the Tories said,
To make the structural changes that are necessary to restore the dynamic of a mixed economy will need a settled approach over a long, hard haul.
Later the document suggests that it will require a 10-year period for the strategy to be successful and that is right.
It is said in the CBI document "The Road to Recovery" that industrialists need more long-term consistency but even if the Conservatives come to power they may not obtain the required investment. They did not do so when they were in power in earlier years.
The reason for that situation is clear. Unless the Conservative Party poses the possibility that the nation will become a one-party State, industrialists, investors and landlords must think in terms of an alternative. As long as this system lasts, the alternative may be a swing to old-style Socialism—perhaps far more to the Left than is the present Government. Therefore, the Conservative Party will have to accept our approach in the long run. Although the Conservatives were in power from 1951 to 1964, investment, particularly in the steel industry, did not appear because it was always considered to be a political risk. Even if under a Conservative Government there is a review of housing policy to assist private landlords and to bring capital into the private housing market, landlords will not invest because they will fear a return to another type of government.
How are we to change the system? It will not be done in this House—for the obvious reasons that individual Members will suffer from the introduction of proportional representation. It stands to reason that if there are to be 117 Liberal Members there will be 50 or 60 fewer Labour Members and 50 or so fewer Conservative Members. Each Member will have over him an unhappy question mark. Members will not support electoral reform. It will be done eventually because enough people will follow Joe

Rogaly's advice and become militant democrats.
There is a breakthrough point for the Liberal Party. It involves 23 to 28 per cent. of the electorate and about 7 million votes—in other words, 7 million militant democrats voting in the next election as though they were casting votes in a referendum for proportional representation. They will recognise that the only way in which they can vote for proportional representation is by voting Liberal. Then 7 million militant democrats will lead to the end of the adversarial two-party system. That will lead to a different kind of government for Britain.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am pleased to speak following the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), although I wish to clarify one or two points that arise from his speech before I advance certain thoughts of my own.
I suggest that we are facing, not a situation of merely looking forward to a coalition of different parties if the projected electoral reforms envisaged by the hon. Gentleman come into effect, but a coalition now. We know—and certainly the hon. Gentleman should know—that each party in this House is a coalition of many disparate parts.
Secondly, I wish to question the direct link that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make between economic performance and the effects of our electoral system. He said that he did not claim electoral reform as a cure-all, but I suggest that that could be read into the motion and what he said about it. It would be misleading the country to suggest that, by a wave of the constitutional reforming wand, our desperate economic problems will go away.
The third point involves the Liberal proprietorship that was sought to he established for the idea of electoral reform as a whole.

Mr. Pardoe: No, I was not suggesting that was the case.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not make that claim for the Liberals, and I am grateful for that. Constitutional reform and political evolution has emanated from all parties over the years. In 1950 we saw the


disappearance of the last piece of proportional representation represented by the university seats, and it was only in 1969, that votes at 18 were introduced. There has been concern in all parts of the House, with many wishing to bring about some reform of our constitutional system.
I wish to express my admiration to the Liberal Party for espousing this cause. I do not accept that a great influx of Liberal Members of Parliament will be brought about by such change. As many other parties espouse a commitment at least to investigate a reform of our electoral system, the support attracted to the Liberal Party, because only it advocates such reform, will ebb away. Obviously hon. Members are prepared to take a risk and I am delighted that they should do so in electoral terms.
In Westminster we can now find more than sufficient horrifying reminders of the state of rot and decay that now affects what we could, until quite recently, claim as the great British parliamentary democracy which has been revered and often copied through the world. For years Britain could tell the world the meaning of democracy. Now we are in a constitutional mess.
That our present Government is acting in a way that represents only a minority of the people in the country hardly needs repeating. The fact that fewer than 30 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Labour Government speaks for itself. The fact of the present Government's doctrinaire Socialist legislation only too dramatically negates any claim that government now reflects majority opinion. Choice at the hustings is no choice at all if it is not reflected in a Government which represents reasonably accurately the choice that has been made.
Equally, it can no longer be argued that our present electoral method is particularly well-designed to sustain a Cabinet Executive through a reasonably long government, although the happenings of yesterday evening went in a different direction from this line of argument. I would rather deal with the issue on the basis of recent experience.
The Executive now is maintained in power only in so far as it can count on support for its policies from various disparate groups inside and outside Parlia-

ment and within its own and other parties here and elsewhere. This is true now, and surely it will become more true in the future, because the first-past-the-post method encourages those small parties which can concentrate their support in a small number of constituencies. We see that in the growth of nationalist parties. The first-past-the-post system, as it encourages those parties, discourages other parties that seek support throughout the country.
Whether we like it or not and whether we change the electoral system or not, the days of the basic two-party system have probably gone for ever. This is marked by a loss in votes for the two major parties which leads to a Government who lack the legitimacy and moral support that they should have and that they desperately need today.
What is to be done? Several possible solutions have been offered. Most of them are complementary, and some have emanated from the other place. A written constitution is one possibility, but, with all its merits, it brings some problems in its train and could lead to a vast increase in governmental bureaucracy and interference by legal intervention, as we see in America and France. A new Bill of Rights is another possibility. But the preparation of such a Bill and adherence to it must require more political consensus than exists between the party battle lines today.
Another suggestion is reform of the second Chamber. Reform may be needed if only to protect our two-Chamber system from the threat of abolition, which appears to be supported by some senior members of the Government party. Necessary though that reform may be, it is peripheral to the real problem.
The real need—and it is the reason that I support the motion—is a reform of the House of Commons, not just by the introduction of a fixed term of government—although that has its attractions and merits investigation—nor by greater use of referendums, which are an unattractive prop to our present wobbly parliamentary system; nor by increased reliance on Committee work, which the Secretary of State for Education recently advocated —although that might be an improvement to procedures. I advocate reform at the core of Parliament, reform of our electoral system by substituting for our


present first-past-the-post system—which leads to inequitable and undesirable representation—a more proportional system, through which the innate good sense of the majority of the people can be reflected in the composition and therefore on the actions of this country's Governments.
We debated proportional representation all night the other Tuesday. That debate was not about our national Parliament; it was about Scotland and Wales. That was a particularly appropriate subject for debate, because the most astonishing aberration of the last General Election happened in Dunbartonshire, East, where the Scottish National Party candidate was elected by only 31 per cent. of those who voted—the lowest proportion of support in any United Kingdom constituency. In that constituency three-quarters of the electorate did not support the SNP candidate as their Member of Parliament, yet here the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) usually is. It is noteworthy that there is no hon. Member from the Scottish National Party in the Chamber today. That is an indication of their lack of concern with democratic processes. The hon. Lady is now at Westminster demanding the most extreme action—a separate State for Scotland. What more dramatic illustration can there be than that of the inequity of our present system?

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the hon. Member agree that although it was a remarkable election result to which he refers, it was symbolic, in that the 31 per cent. which brought the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) here is virtually the same as the total percentage of the electorate which installed the whole Government?

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Member makes my point well.
It is against that background that I urge the House to consider how to reform the system. That could be done perhaps by establishing a Speaker's Conference or perhaps by a special independent commission set up to study speedily the whole question of constitutional and electoral reform, and quickly to recommend action to improve our electoral system.
I urge this in the belief that such reform is needed by our country and would be good for it. There is a growing wave of opinion that appreciates the need for change, that would support it, and that would support any candidate or party which advocates consideration of such reform.
I urge such reform because true conservation—I take literally my own party's name—can often be achieved only by carefully conceived and planned evolution. Such constitutional evolution is long overdue in Britain.
I urge this because I belong to a party which prides itself, with justification, on being the party of the constitution. Only a Government supported by the majority of the country, elected through a more proportionately representative system than the present one, can protect us from the one-party State which might so easily be the outcome of a successful confrontation with Parliament by far Left-wing or Right-wing forces outside our parliamentary system.
I urge this because, under our present system of parliamentary democracy, Parliament cannot protect the legal rights of individuals from arbitrary Executive decisions. Therefore, the system must be reformed. Let the party of freedom lead that reform; I hope that the Conservative Party will do that.
I urge this because a more proportionate electoral system should ensure that we never again have a leftwards-leaning Socialist Government for ever kow-towing to its most radical elements.
The argument that the first-past-the-post system ensures strong government, representative government, or moderate government sadly should be stood on its head. The sooner we realise that and take action the better it will be for Parliament and for people.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I was partly inspired to do so by the feeling that the Benches on both sides today, particularly on this side, should contain more hon. Members who are ready to participate in this fundamental discussion. I congratulate the Liberal Party on initiating the debate.
If tomorrow morning the Government make the sensible decision and drop the Scotland and Wales Bill entirely, the 20 days that will be saved could be well spent on a long discussion in depth on this subject, which can be discussed only briefly this afternoon. The background to the debate contains a number of important and hopeful tendencies. One is the unusual rigidity of the party system in the past 30 years.
I say "in the past 30 years" because in earlier periods of our history Parliament was more flexible and there was more inclination for people to cross the Floor and for groups to form and line up on various issues. In the last 30 years the main parties have taken on the form of well-drilled armies. They got through the Lobbies at the crack of a whip, with virtually every vote a foregone conclusion. We ought to reflect once in a while on the fact that Mr. Gladstone started life as a Tory and became a Liberal, Mr. Joe Chamberlain started life as a Liberal and became a distinguished Tory, and Sir Winston Churchill crossed the Floor twice in his lifetime. Many others whose names are not so well remembered were much more flexible.
The rigidity of the system has meant that the three main parties have become more and more detached from the body of the electorate. A further background to this debate is the growing disenchantment and disillusionment with party politics that we have seen growing rapidly, especially in the last decade or so. Anyone who went canvassing in an election 15 or 20 years ago, certainly for the Labour Party, could go down a street and mark fairly accurately whether people were for or against. If some said that they were doubtful, it was usually only a polite way of saying that they were against.
These days there are many more genuinely doubtful people among the electorate. When I speak about people being doubtful I mean not apathetic people but people who care about the issues and the future of their country and who do not see that the existing system of government provides any answer to the problem worrying them.
To some extent this is happening throughout the world. This feeling of disenchantment was present in the recent American election and in the German

and Japanese General Elections. It is probably a factor throughout the free world and, I daresay, in the totalitarian world also, although we shall never know because people there cannot express themselves.
This feeling is partly due to the increasing pace of events and the complexity of the issues, coupled with the almost inevitable failure of politicians in government to fulfil expectations in a rapidly changing world. There is also a peculiarly British dimension to this. There are many ways in which our complacency about our institutions has made our problems worse than those of other countries. I wish to underline three points which have already been touched on.
My first concerns the selection of candidates and within that I include the "de-selection" of sitting Members. Of course I should declare an interest here. If I illustrate this in terms of the unhappy history of Newham, North-East in the past 18 months I do so only to make a particular point relevent to the debate. I do not come to weep on anyone's shoulder.
It so happens that in the last General Election I was opposed by an extreme Left-wing Socialist, Miss Vanessa Red-grave, who ran under the banner of the Workers' Revolutionary Party. I give her all credit for running under her banner for her own principles. She polled 500 votes and I got nearly 23,000 votes. That was the verdict of the electorate.
But because of the way in whch we do things in Britain, the proposition of people who at the moment have a majority in my local general management committee is that the politics of Vanessa Redgrave should be imposed on the people of Newham by the back door. I believe this to be an extreme although not unique illustration of the way in which our present system not only enables minorities to govern the country but any minorities within a minority to exercise a disproportionate influence.
President Carter is now the President of the United Sates and I hope and believe that he will be a great President. I feel optimistic about the prospects.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It would be quite amusing to suggest that Vanessa Redgrave's party had been a major force leading to my right hon.


Friend losing the support of his management committee. It would be misleading to suggest that. It was not Miss Red-grave's party which predominated in that action.

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend has not followed my point. I paid tribute to Miss Redgrave for standing under her own party banner and for facing the electorate with a policy, which was decisively rejected. I respect people who hold such a minority view and stand under their own colours. What has happened in my constituency party, and within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), and in some others, is that there has been an influx of people who, rather than run under their own colours, join the Labour Party because they believe that they can get more power that way than by facing the electorate under their own banner. That is a different proposition.
President Carter was selected as a presidential candidate as a result of a process in which millions of American citizens took part. If he had had to rely upon the inner workings of the Democratic Party, he would never have been a candidate. We have a lot to learn from the American system. I am not suggesting that the British people are ready to accept the primary system as it stands, but I believe that it has merits that ought to be examined by us with care. Either the primary system or some version of it might well be adopted in our case.
My next point is that the system of adversary politics dominated by two main parties leads to actions at election times that are profoundly unhealthy for democracy. If we look at the election manifestos of all parties for the two 1974 elections we find that they were quite good on the first two or three pages. They all recognised that Britain faced a difficult economic situation and said that the first priority was to work our way out of it. When we move to pages 5, 6 and 7 and read the chapters on housing, education, pensions, or the health services we find that all political parties were offering to do things, making promises and proposing to spend resources that the country had not earned. In the process of doing so they were devaluing not only themselves but democracy. It is

this constant repetition of election promises that are not fulfilled that is leading to a growing disenchantment with the whole democratic process.
My third point was well made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Our present system prevents the degree of continuity in policy that we must have in view of our desperate economic situation. Most of us would say that when we speak of continuity we are not asking for genuine differences to be disguised or fudged. We are not suggesting that the House of Commons should always pretend to agree about everything. What is unfortunate about our present system is that we seem to feel a compulsion to exaggerate our differences, to have a parliamentary row about three times a week, to pretend to differences that do not exist.
That attitude is translated into the manifestos and into a situation in which an incoming Government feel bound to tear up much of the structure they inherit and to try to start again. Then, a couple of years later, they have to do a U-turn. The whole history of prices and incomes policy in the past 12 or 14 years is an illustration of this. If there had been a commonly accepted policy, a continuing approach to prices and incomes during that period, while we should still have had inflation, I am convinced that we should not have had as much. The extent of inflation is due to the stops and starts and the U-turns that have been part of our system.
I close my remarks on an optimistic note derived from my experiences this week. The first was an experience I had on Monday night, which hon. Members did not share, and the second was the experience of last night, which we all shared.
The night before last I was the guest speaker at the annual general meeting of the Lincoln Democratic Labour Association. It was an exciting, invigorating meeting, the most invigorating local political gathering that I have visited for many years. The LDLA has won two elections out of the last three in Lincoln and is confident that it can win the next. It controls the city of Lincoln, is represented on the county council and is a leading political force in the city.
Its active membership includes people who have been members of the Conservative, Liberal and Labour Parties and, perhaps most important, it also includes people who had found no political outlet until the LDLA was formed. In other words, it includes people who wanted to do something on local and national issues but who could not find a natural home in the existing political parties. Now they are finding their natural home and are giving service to their city and, by example, to the nation.
We temporarily saw something of that spirit in the referendum campaign. Like many other hon. Members, I was speaking in towns throughout the country and meeting local leaders of the Campaign for Britain in Europe who were saying to each other "We Conservative, Labour and Liberal people are finding that we have more in common with each than we have with many extremists in our own parties. We are happy working together in this cause, but we are afraid that we shall lose touch when the referendum is over." What has happened in Lincoln could potentially be happening throughout the country and is long overdue.
What happened in the House last night should also give us some reason for satisfaction. It was a victory for Parliament. Hon. Members from all parties except the nationalist parties were in the "No" Lobby last night. We were emphasising what is too often forgotten under our present system—that no Government can govern without the consent of Parliament. In doing so we were striking a blow for Parliament and for democracy.
Whether or not we have a fundamental reform of our constitution—and I believe we should have—there should be more occasions like last night when hon. Members judge issues on their merits and do not simply do what their party Whips have told them to do.

Mr. Eric Heffer: My right hon. Friend must be aware that over the years many of us have judged issues on their merits. I have certainly done so for the past 10 or 11 years, and for that I have been regarded as a Left-wing extremist, a rebel wanting to rock the boat, and so on. My right hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. Many of the people in the "No" Lobby last night do

not share his views one iota, except perhaps on devolution. That is not an argument that political debate and discussion and argument should cease, because that is the essence of democracy.

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend and I have had strong disagreements, sometimes deep disagreements, on various issues in the past, but I hope that he will accept that I have always respected the way in which he has stood up for his principles. My hon. Friend has said that he has, as he put it, rocked the boat. I think that he is entitled to rock the boat. I think that people throughout the political spectrum should do so, although, as a footnote, I would add that some people on the left wing of the Labour Party—and I do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)— seem to apply double standards. They believe that it is right for members of the Left to say exactly what they like and to make vigorous attacks on the moderates in the Labour Party, but if the moderate part of the Labour Party does the same thing in return, that is rocking the boat.
Now that I am free from the shackles of being in office, I find that I have the same kind of freedom as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton has exercised. I believe that other hon. Members throughout the House should exercise that freedom.
I do not believe that we should abandon the party system or go as far as the American Congress in this respect. There is much to be said for party cohesion a good deal of the time, but we should have a healthier democracy if there were more free votes and more occasions when hon. Members could abstain or vote against their party because of the merits of a particular issue. If the Government of the day had to win the vote through argument and had to convince hon. Members instead of taking their support for granted, they would more often carry the country with them, and the quality of government would be better.
I thank the Liberals for choosing this subject. I have been able to make only a few brief, unrehearsed remarks, but I believe that we should return to this subject at greater length in the months ahead.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: So far today in this debate we have


listened to three profoundly interesting speeches, not least that of the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), who referred to last night's vote. The significance of the vote was that, quite exceptionally, it was not a matter of ritual, as votes have become in the House. It is a strange reflection on our democracy that serious political writers can say—and hon. Members can repeat it in the House—that the only weapon in the hands of an Opposition is time.
It is significant that last night's vote was concerned with time. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was so moved that he carried his convictions to the extent of abstaining. I understood that he always stood up for his convictions in these matters.
I wish to touch on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) when he said that electoral reform was not an overall answer to the country's problems but a catalyst, something necessary to bring about a profound change in our political attitudes. In this country we are suffering from the adversary system of politics. We all know that there is an enormous amount of synthetic indignation engendered in the House on various issues which does not reflect the true feelings of hon. Members or the electorate outside. The right hon. Member for Newham, North-East said that one of the great faults of our system was the "bargain basement" attitude towards elections. When the history of the present period is written it will be seen that the worst part of the last Conservative Administration was the first 18 months, and when we look at the history of the present Government we shall see that it was also the first 18 months that were worst. The Government have been struggling in a variety of ways to put right the wrongs which they committed in the first 18 months. The respective Governments were both trying to fulfil promises that they had made to secure victory, not to serve the best interests of the country.
I turn now to the kind of reform that we can achieve in our present system of government in this House. A matter of great anxiety to those who run the country is the mass of ill-digested legislation that is passed. The interests of those who

are affected in today's highly sophisticated modern world are insufficiently consulted. Bills are often badly drafted and do not do what Ministers say they are designed to do. I was a member of the ill-fated Select Committee on agriculture which had the temerity years ago, under the chairmanship of the then hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, now Lord Watkins, to send for various civil servants and to interrogate them about price reviews in agriculture and so on. The Committee was scrapped when it was found that our inquiries were going too far, but that Committee illustrated for a short time the sort of thing that could be done if the Committee system in the House were changed.
In the book by Griffith and Perry covering scrutiny of Government Bills, in the period considered the authors found that 3,510 amendments had been moved by Back Benchers and that of these fewer than 5 per cent. were agreed to. Govenment Ministers moved 2,710 amendments in the same period, and of these all but one were passed. Back Benchers withdrew 1,797 amendments on the usual fraudulent undertaking given by Ministers that the matter would be considered and that appropriate amendments would be introduced at the Report Stage. This makes a farce of parliamentary democracy, because of the undertakings given in 1,797 cases, only 365 amendments were made or introduced by the Government.
The authors came to the conclusion that on only 25 occasions were Governments forced to make any significant changes because of Back-Bench pressure, and that general situation applies in this House whatever the complexion of the Government. Once they occupy the Front Bench, Ministers, with very few exceptions, seem to be completely controlled by the thinking of their civil servants and no longer reflect the views of the House of Commons or the electorate which put them in power.
I should like to see, as a reform of our system of government in this House, a change in our system of Committees. For example, I think we should have subject Committees sitting in advance of legislation which should consider consultative documents presented by the Government. As an example, let me take two subjects in which I have been particularly


interested over the years. They are agriculture and defence. Everyone knows that this country has an annual price review when various interests such as the NFU are consulted by Ministers or civil servants. Members of Parliament are never consulted on these matters. These days our Minister goes over to the Common Market and has to make representations to his EEC colleagues about what the EEC agricultural policy should be.
There is, however, no means of consultation with the elected Members of Parliament here, who represent consumers, farmers and so on, and nor is there consultation with the various interests. I declare an interest as a farmer, but why should the farming unions be consulted yet the consumer associations are not? It is important that a Select Committee should have power to ask various bodies to come before it and to consider a consultative document put before it by the Government. The Committee should be able to call and interrogate civil servants and various interested groups, and it should be able to prepare an advisory report for the House of Commons. All this should also happen before legislation is introduced.
The same thing could happen with a defence Committee. There should be a permanent defence Committee which should be able to call various experts before it as well as calling in the civil servants before any legislation is considered by the House.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am not sure that the hon. and learned Member is on such a good point as he thinks, apart from the fact that there is not often legislation about defence. If he looks at the minutes of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee he will find that anything of real significance is denoted by asterisks only.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is because of the very nature of what is being considered. I gave defence as an example simply because I have been interested in the subject, and it is a very good example of the kind of sphere in which there should be a permanent Committee with wider powers than are possessed by the Corm-

mittee on which the hon. Member sits at present.
Thereafter we should have the Committee again sitting to consider legislation after Bills have been given a Second Reading. This Committee should have the power to examine Ministers, civil servants and outside bodies. Each such Committee should have its own research staff, independent of other research staffs in the House. I do not suggest that there should be an excessive number of such Committees, but I am sure there is room for half a dozen of them, with Members sitting around a table, not on the old basis of adversaries across the floor making repetitive speeches but inquiring of experts. We live in a highly sophisticated country. Modern life is becoming more and more complex. There are various interested groups which know far more about a subject than any one hon. Member can hope to know.
It is necessary to marry our deeply-established political system, which has evolved over a long time, with modern industrial society. In order to do that we can adapt our Committee system to a system better suited to modern times. That system would also provide Back Benchers with a much clearer and more useful rôle. It is ridiculous that the only weapon of an Opposition is time. That results in all-night sittings, wasted time and repetitive speeches, and we should clear up our procedure to make sure that we can have much better means of being a more effective opposition.
This system would also produce much more effectively the desirable check on Government activity and would lead to a much closer examination of legislation than is made at present. We know from experience on many Committees that a few Members do a good deal of work and that many Members are just passengers. It would be very much better, and hon. Members would themselves learn much more about their specialist spheres, if they sat on a different kind of Committee in considering legislation. This would also streamline the passage of legislation through the House and cut out a great deal of duplication. The Report stage would probably be much more important. There could be an advisory report from the appropriate Committee to the House before Report stage. It would involve outside interests


very much more in the formative stages of legislation. It would also bring about much more consensus politics, not in the political sense but in the industrial sense, in this country.
The vote last night, as I have said, has attracted such a great interest because it was not a repetition of the usual ritual through which we go in this House. It illustrates, by the very interest that it has engendered, one of the tremendous weaknesses of our modern parliamentary democracy.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am about to inject a discordant note into the debate in being the first Member to speak against the motion. Before 1 am suddenly identified as an unexpected political ally of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as a wrecking extremist, perhaps I had better describe briefly the position from which I speak.
When I hear people talk about the Centre in politics, I always believe that to be something to which I personally belong. If I am ever pressed to define my position in politics, it perhaps begins to date me when I call myself a Butskellite, and I continue to use that phrase even though it has gone out of fashion for the time being. I remain a believer in consensus politics. It is the duty of a Government to achieve consensus so far as possible. Perhaps to relate myself to this debate, and for the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), I agree that the worst period of office of the last two Governments—Conservative and Labour—was the first 18 months of each of their terms of office. That was because of the pressures to which they had succumbed before they came to power and before reality set in.
Speaking from that position, I find myself a little isolated from my political friends in the House who seem to have taken up electoral reform as a passionate cause and are pressing it strongly for what they believe to be desirable constitutional purposes. I exempt from them, although its members are often my political friends, the Liberal Party because alongside its genuine constitutional motives is the underlying feeling that there would be a substantial increase in

the number of Liberal Members in the House if only electoral reform could be achieved.
The reason why I am against reform from my essentially centralist position, however, is that I believe that the system of election in this country still exercises desirable pressures—from my point of view—upon the practice of politics in this country, and I believe that it should continue to do so.
First, I should make it clear that I am trying to identify the pressures imposed on politics and politicians by our electoral system. I do not intend to go into a great discourse on the present state of politics and the reliability or otherwise of politicians, because politicians are basically what they make themselves. This Parliament is basically what hon. Members make it. The system exercises certain pressures that are on the whole beneficial, and if there are failings they are the failings of the people who are practising politics—their failure to respond to the pressures.
The main pressure that our first-past-the-post system exerts is that it tends to pull politicians and politics towards the centre. The victor in electoral terms in British politics is the man or woman who strives to get as near as possible to 50 per cent. of the popular vote and who strives to occupy the middle ground. Victory has always gone to the political party that succeeded in getting closest to the middle ground. This has been a beneficial influence for a considerable length of time.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Would the hon. Member describe for me—and I am an hon. Member with a majority of only 464—what pressure he can possibly experience with a majority of over 15,000?

Mr. Clarke: At least, at the General Election I sailed in with more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. Therefore, I have no personal vested interest in advocating electoral reform. I think that some of the advocates of electoral reform find themselves elected on narrow majorities by our present system and then realise that a change in the system would make it virtually impossible for them to be removed.
Nationally speaking, victory goes to the party which occupies the middle ground, and I do not believe that circumstances


have changed. But at the moment, uniquely, we have a Government in power who have been seen to vacate the middle ground, and I believe that the next General Election will give victory to the party which most successfully occupies it.
The second influence of the present system is that it tends to give us a coalition system of government. We do not have the post-election coalitions formed by agreement between different parties which stood separately at elections. Instead, we have big parties which are themselves coalitions. They have formed themselves into these coalitions to present themselves to the electorate in order to have a prospect of success under our electoral system. There are wide ranges of opinion within the big parties at the moment. To present either big party as a monolithic bloc representing certain interests is total mythology.
Those coalitions are formed and held together by the present electoral system, and if the parties did not respond to this pressure they would have no chance of success. We achieve unity because we agree on a programme to present to the electorate, and we maintain our unity in order to convince the electorate that we can offer some cohesion in Government. We present ourselves as a broad-based bloc in order to win power, and we realise that there is no hope of victory in pursuing sectional interests.
Proportional representation would fragment those coalitions and divide the existing parties. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) will not be offended if I say this, but I think it is inconceivable that he and I would be in the same political party under a multi-party system. I do not think for one moment that he would disagree with that. But he and I are held together in a friendly coalition in exactly the same way as members of the Labour Party are held together by the electoral system.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Both hon. Members fought on the same manifesto.

Mr. Clarke: In a coalition Government formed by separate parties all the members pursue the same policy in power irrespective of their manifestos. In this

country, there is an amalgamation of respective beliefs before an election. It is quite different in a multi-party system because the coalition is formed after the election by secret deals in smoke filled rooms between parties which can form a majority but which did not coalesce before the election.
That leads me to the third consequence of our present electoral system which I believe is beneficial. It gives the electorate an actual choice of the Government who will govern them for the next four or five years. Members of the public can protest and say "A plague on both your houses", but they know that they can vote both for the Prime Minister and for the Government of their choice. Under a multi-party system they could not do so with any certainty.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Does my hon. Friend release that at no time since the Second World War has the majority of the electorate ended up with the Government for which it voted? Experience generally is that coalition Governments are formed not as a result of deals in smoke-filled rooms after an election but as a result of compromises by the parties concerned before the election, when they commit themselves to saying during the election compaign with whom they will coalesce. The electorate are well aware of the sort of Government for which they will be voting.

Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, there are endless examples of Governments in Europe being formed by a coalition of parties which do not command the support of 50 per cent. of the electorate. No American President has been elected by 50 per cent. of the total population. Under the European system, many Governments are not supported by 50 per cent. of the voters. Nor is it true that coalition deals are done in all cases before an election. It is true that the coalition in Germany was reached before the election, but one could contrast that with the situation in Holland where, after every election recently, it has been unclear who could and would form a Government for some months. During that time secret deals are formulated, even to the point where everyone is haggling over who will hold what portfolio and which regions will be favoured in the subsequent programme.
In our present system, the electorate vote for the Government and the Prime Minister. In one sense that weakens our position as Members of Parliament because we know that in our constituencies, while there are those who actually vote for ourselves as individuals, there are those who are exercising their right to have either Mr. Callaghan or Mrs. Thatcher as Prime Minister or one or other platform, knowing that their Member will support that platform when he is elected. As a balance to that, once the Government are elected the Member has the satisfaction of knowing that as the constituency Member he is a representative of the Government to whom the constituents have practical access for their own personal problems. That concept would be thrown out completely by the introduction of electoral reform.
The opportunity to vote for a Government also has a certain disciplining effect on the electorate—and I do not mean to sound patronising in saying this. It has this effect because there are those who at an election will turn away from the possibility of pursuing limited sectional interests—

Mr. Cyril Smith: Now we know what is behind it.

Mr. Clarke: I do not know why the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) Keeps interrupting everything I say. He has been here only a few minutes. The position is that under a multi-party system there are sectionalists, regionalists, Poujardists and, in other countries, confessionalists and religious elements. In this country, under our system the electorate face a choice between two realistic alternatives for Government for the next five years. Normally they must decide between the lesser of two evils. That is the reality of politics which, I trust, the hon. Member for Rochdale is following in his judgments in this House. No man ever reads a party manifesto and believes every word of it—or, if he does, he is some sort of automaton employed in Central Office or Transport House.
Politicians and the electorate face a choice between the lesser of two evils—between two realistic and working coalitions which have formed themselves to hold office. Therefore, they plump for a party to form a Government. It

has a disciplining effect on the electorate in that it makes them use their votes for a serious purpose. It has an effect on the Government in that it discourages them from using their power for purely sectional, fringe, regional or confessional interests. In any multi-party system an anti-abortion party would be a strong runner in some parts of this country, and the effect on the electorate would be to deflect them into a small issue and away from making a realistic choice of the Government of the day.
Having defended the present system in a House apparently composed mainly of those prepared to change it, I turn now to its defects. The argument is that it is unfair because it disfranchises 3 million electors who, in the Liberal case, as it were, throw their votes away and are not represented in this House—

Mr. Pardoe: It is 5½ million.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, 5½ million including the other parties.

Mr. Pardoe: No, 5½ million for us.

Mr. Clarke: You get 5½ million?

Mr. Pardoe: Yes.

Mr. Clarke: When the hon. Member hears what I am about to say about his party's vote, he will understand my amazement that the Liberal Party gets 5½ million votes.
The Liberals' case on the wasted vote is that they represent this vote as being somehow the silent centre ground of politics which is not represented here and is excluded from the adversary politics of the great parties. With respect, that is a complete myth carefully calculated by the Liberal Party and does not represent that nature of the Liberal vote in the country at all. Otherwise, I as a centrist politician would be happy to welcome 5½ million recruits to the causes that I hold dear.
The vision of the two major parties as the parties of, in one case, big business and, in the other, the trade unions, with the little man in between never represented, is a myth. They are both broadly-based, overlapping coalitions. The Liberal vote is not this centrist ground arguing for continuity and the other things that it is represented as being. It comprises largely protest voters


voting against the party for which otherwise they would tend to vote.
In my constituency—surveys have shown that my situation is not unique—my Liberal opponent, who is slightly to my right on economic policy but otherwise holds views completely indistinguishable from mine on every major issue, gets a large number of votes from Right-wing electors who are voting because they agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on immigration or because they are against our membership of the EEC. They vote Liberal in order to teach people like me a lesson. It is mainly a protest Right-wing vote.
The other element in the Liberal vote is the totally non-political Poujadist vote which votes Liberal because it does not regard Liberals as politicians and protests against the general failure of politics and our present economic malaise, saying, in effect, "To the devil with the lot of you." That vote has nothing to do with positive support of a programme. However appealing—I do not believe that it is appealing—the Liberal programme might be to some, its programme is almost a complete irrelevancy. The people who vote for this reason do not know what the programme is and they do not want to know what it is. This is a large nonpolitical vote.
I fear that a change in the electoral system would unleash that Poujadist, nonpolitical vote, that protest vote, and would give it extremely dangerous sectional channels to support. It would turn this Parliament into one which, although under our present system it is becoming multi-party, might then become multiparty with the National Front and other undesirable fringe groups represented. I do not think that the Liberal Party would necessarily succeed as a result.
One must accept that the Liberal Party gets the votes of those who vote for small parties because of a protest against the performance of Governments over the last few years and an expression of some disillusionment with the working of our politics. One must search for the causes of that disillusion but not attribute them all to the electoral system. The pressures of the electoral system are wholly beneficial upon our politicians and our

political parties. If we have not satisfied the electorate, the failures lie with the politicians and the parties in failing to respond to those pressures.
When one considers what is going on with the supposed inflexibility of the present parties—the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) gets on to such matters as the selection of candidates—one sees that the situation within the Labour Party currently relates to matters entirely within the constitution of one of the major political parties and has nothing to do with our electoral system.
Indeed, I would say that the electoral system is on the side of the right hon. Gentleman's views, even if it is too late to rescue the right hon. Gentleman from his own party executive, in that those who move to extremes within his party will at least pay the electoral penalty. The extreme Left-wing candidate who succeeds him will lose electoral appeal in consequence of taking an extremist position, and the system will tend to pull matters back towards the middle.
The parties must respond to the system by satisfying the public and seeking to appeal to the moderate centre of public opinion which is dominant in this country. As one part of that appeal, we must therefore seek to avoid the ping-pong of politics and adversary politics. A party will win support if it can commit itself to the minimum of repeal of what its predecessors did and the minimum of institutional change and reform, if it can show that it has been made responsible by the experience of government. A party must resist pressures from its own doctrinaire elements to pledge itself immediately in opposition against all those things which it found itself obliged to do when it was itself the Government.
But that is something for the parties to respond to, and the present system of election helps to influence the major parties, in Government and in Opposition to do that, and it does not work in the reverse way. Changes of the kind advocated would weaken our democracy by turning the formation of Governments into deals between politicians. They would weaken Parliament by making it a multi-party institution enabling Governments to manage it on the principle of divide and rule. Even worse, it would encourage what I think is perhaps the


most dangerous tendency in the country at the moment; it would help to divide the country further into warring sectional interest groups, competing regional rivalries, fragmented political interests and extremes which are already being given more of a separate platform. It is a mistake to pursue this fashion for electoral reform in the belief that it has anything significant to do with our present political malaise.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Judging from the speeches rather than the motion, there are three subjects covered in this debate. One is proportional representation, the second is parliamentary procedures and the third, which is the main one in the motion, is the state of the economy. Much has been said about parliamentary procedure. It is interesting to reflect that what we are supposed to be doing today is considering the Estimates for expenditure upon the public service. There could be no better reflection of the inefficient way in which the House does its job than to know that that is what we are supposed to be up to.
At least the Liberal Members are to be congratulated. They have hardly put down a substantive motion for discussion, but at least we are not having this debate upon a motion for the Adjournment, which is the motion that the official Opposition more often than not chooses for the use of its Supply Days.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested—I can hardly believe that even he believes it—that all the ills of our governmental, or rather our parliamentary, system derive from the absence of proportional representation. He acknowledged that the Liberal Party has great self-interest in the introduction of that system. I take the view that there is practically everything wrong with the way in which we do our work in Parliament except the necessity for proportional representation.
If we had that system, the inevitable result—as I tried to point out in an intervention—for the foreseeable future at any rate, is that there would be three principle parties. Two would be largish parties—not on the extremes: we have no extremes of any political significance in this country—Labour and Conservative, roughly equal in size, and in the

middle the Liberal Party, with a much greater representation in the House than it has now.
The only consequence of that is that either before or after elections there would be a deal between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party or between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. It would be up to the Liberal Party to choose one of those parties. The Liberal Party would be permanently in power, and we would not have an opposition which by appealing to the electorate could realistically expect to secure power. I can think of nothing which would be more weakening to the proper function of parliamentary democracy than that kind of coalition in power all the time with an opposition which could never expect to be in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let other hon. Members say how it would work if not in the way which I have described.
Our parliamentary habits are wrong. I stress the word "habits" because there is nothing wrong with the system. I include such secondary aspects of it—important though they are—as the Committee system to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred. Of course we should have subject Committees like every other legislature in the world. Of course we should have a better method for the scrutiny of expenditure, such as we are supposed to be doing now, and for the scrutiny of legislation.
Those of us who serve on the No. 1 Procedure Committee are hopeful —we hope; we do not believe—that perhaps the consequence of that Committee's proceedings will be to place before the House some procedural changes which could greatly improve it. But I do not believe that the procedures or the structures of the House are the main fault. The fault is the attitude of Members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) said, the trouble is that Members are simply not prepared often enough to vote the way they think.[HON. MEMBERS: "Last night."] The day after last night is perhaps not the day to take the view that everything will change for the better, but we shall see.
I do not think that it would make for a good Government or a useful Parliament if Members were on every vote to


scratch their heads to decide with which grouping they would vote each time and on which individual basis they would vote each time. Like every other group of decision makers, we must compromise with each other and trust each other's judgment on things. I might defer to another person's judgment on certain subjects, but on other subjects that other person might defer to my judgment. But in the end the responsibility whether I compromise is mine and I am not responsible to my Whip for the manner in which I discharge that obligation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), one of our Whips, who has just entered the Chamber, well knows. I am answerable only to the electorate which sent me here.
Those who tend to speak in this manner tend also to say that what is wrong with Parliament is the Members, not the electoral system and not the public. I regret to say that the public escape a wee bit too lightly. In this the public has something to answer for. There are not many countries where an MP can receive a letter from a constituent saying that it is a disgrace that such-and-such a Minister is allowing his MP a free vote. That has happened to me.
If there is to be a change inside the House, the change of habit must be in the hearts and minds of the Members and the change of procedures must be devised by Members. On this issue I have changed my mind since coming into the House. The force of the change upon Members must come from outside the House. The public must expect its Members to be answerable for what they do in the House. The electors must expect their Members not to say "Well, I voted such-and-such a way because my party voted that way". People will say they are not interested in that but in why their Member had voted that way.
As far as I can judge the attitude of my constituents, they want me to support solidly the continuance of a Labour Government. That is the principal reason why they sent me here. But on individual issues they expect me to use a considerable measure of independence of judgment. Unless that is done, this whole place might as well pack up. The lack of that sufficient measure of individual judgment weakens and practically

paralyses the House of Commons at present.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North suggests in the motion that the introduction of proportional representation would somehow transform the British economy and would remove the English disease—or what it is that is wrong with our economy. That argument is slightly valid. The notion in the minds of many people that the country faces a political divide perpetually, and may go along one path or another, carries over into economic affairs and industrial relations. But for the most part I think that the political situation is irrelevant to economic affairs.
The British disease, which is diagnosed as things basically sophisticated, and worth writing a book or even an article about, is nothing more than good plain old-fashioned inefficiency. At present, the British are colossally inefficient. We could not organise a raffle. That situation exists in private and public industries. It exists in the Government and in the House of Commons and it exists certainly in all the political parties as machines. Perhaps it exists in political parties as machines more than it exists in most other places. I do not know the solution to that problem except perhaps exhortation. It seems an extremely weak remedy for such a killer disease. But I do not think that there is anything we can do except to recognise that the fault lies in the attitudes and efficiency of people, and by at least mentioning it all the time we stand a chance of its being cured in time.
It would be wrong to lead people to suppose that the introduction of a new system of electing Members to this House would suddenly make boardrooms find viable projects which they cannot find at present, or that it would lead trade union representatives to see the advantage in certain innovations which they do not see at present. It is implicit in the motion that the activities or inactivities of Government are extremely important in determining economic success or failure. I do not accept that. If we have a system where the Government are interventionist—as it is in all Western countries at present—that interventionism continues to be a fractional element of the total decision-taking process whether in operations, investment incentives, taxation or whatever. It is all marginal compared with the efficiency and enterprise


—the two EEs—of those conducting the business.
Over the past decade we have failed because business men in Coventry have not seen the opportunities which business men on the other side of the world in Japan have seen and exploited. It is nothing to do with the notion that these days we cannot sack people. People are never sacked in Japan and Japan gets by without that device almost entirely. We suffer from a lack of efficiency, which means using three people to do the job of two, and a lack of enterprise, which is the failure to find work for the third man.
If we manage simply to recognise that fact, in the end we might manage to climb back out of the rut into which we have fallen, and if the procedures in this Chamber become more related to the real effects in our economy and our politics, that, too, will help to diagnose the real difficulties from which we suffer.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I should like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on introducing this subject and on his speech, which has certainly stimulated an excellent debate. I am delighted that the Minister of State, Home Office, will be replying to the debate, because he and I have sat on the Select Committee on Direct Elections to the European Assembly and I know him to be a good democrat. Likewise, I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, because as a member of the Crowther Commission on the Constitution he has a close interest and an informed view of constitutional matters in the House and, indeed, in the country generally.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made a very reasoned and well argued case—if he will allow me to sound patronising, which is not my intention. When he rightly says, even in the presence of the Whip sitting in the Patronage Secretary's place, that he is answerable to no one but his constituents and that he is not answerable to the Whips and acts according to his conscience, I am sure that that

is so. However, history shows that the sanction for that is having the Whip withdrawn, which under our present system means certain defeat, as many people, such as Dick Taverne, Christopher Mayhew and a whole list of those who have shown such independence, have found out.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says that at every election there is this great swarm to the middle ground. You could have fooled me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when some 380 Members managed to get here with less than 50 per cent. of the vote. One does not swarm to the middle ground. One swarms to the selection committee that selects one. If one is in a safe Tory seat or a safe Labour seat, one gets in. The hon. Gentleman puts a higher value on his own moderation than is perhaps the case. He says that proportional representation will lead inevitably to a whole series of coalitions. I can see that it might do that. It would not necessarily do that, but it might. However, if it did that, it would be because that reflected the wishes of the electorate.
I cannot accept that one should say "Because we never want to have coalitions, we must therefore have a system that distorts the wishes and the votes of the electorate so that we do not get one." One cannot say "We believe in democracy and the process of counting heads", and then cook the books. That is the fallacy.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he had had a letter to say that it was a disgrace that we were allowed a free vote on something. He put that matter humorously, but it indicates the adversarial side of our politics. When we have a free vote, which simply means that the Whips allow hon. Members to exercise their consciences and think for themselves, that is regarded as a very remarkable parliamentary event.
I shall not spend much time on the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, save for the idea that we must discipline the electorate and that they must make a serious choice. What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that we must get them to vote not necessarily for what they want but for the lesser of two evils. That is the sort


of discipline that the electoral system has on Labour voters in my constituency. There are probably 10,000 committed Labour supporters in my constituency. The Labour vote is never more than 5,000 or 6,000, because Labour voters feel compelled to vote for me not because they are liberals but in order to prevent the Tory candidate from getting in.
That is an appalling discipline in an advanced democracy. I should like those Labour supporters to vote according to their convictions, and if then there was no clear majority betwen myself and the Tory candidate, they would have the opportunity to express a second preference. That would be democracy. The authoritarian ring with which the hon. Gentleman is advocating discipline is not the sort that I came here to advocate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Surely the single transferable vote system, which the right hon. Gentleman is advocating, seeks to strengthen just those pressures. If the second preference vote were permitted, it would mean that the Liberal Party would be greatly strengthened because the Liberals would hope to get the second preferences of all those in those constituencies in which no one appears with a clear 50 per cent. majority. They hope to get in on the second preferences of Socialists who would vote for anyone other than a Conservative, or of Conservatives who would vote for anyone other than a Socialist. The second preference system advocated by the Liberals aims to capitalise precisely the influences that the right hon. Gentleman claims to deplore in North Devon.

Mr. Thorpe: The fact that the hon. Gentleman did not know to within the nearest 3 million the Liberal Party vote and his view that we are in favour of the second preference system, known as the alternative vote—which we are not and never have been—shows that he has his facts wrong. Secondly, he does not appear to understand how the single transferable vote works. It is simply that if one has a three-Member or a four-Member constituency, any candidate who gets one-quarter of the votes gets one of the seats. In other words, one is represented in proportion to the strength of one's party. If two out of every four votes go to the Conservatives they would

have two out of the four Members. They would be the two most popular in the opinion of Tory voters.
If I have assisted the hon. Gentleman by a preliminary dissertation on the subject, I hope that he will be grateful.
The hon. Gentleman goes on to talk about what it would really lead to. This was one of his great fears. Those who say that there shall be only two parties are only one stage removed from those who say that there shall be only one party. The principle is the same. What the hon. Gentleman is really worried about is sectionalist parties and regionalist parties. Is that not exactly what we have in this country? Do we not have a system, as shown by the UUUC, Plaid Cymru and the nationalists, in which anyone who can concentrate support in a particular area finds it much easier to get elected? Is it not within the whole system that Plaid Cymru and the SNP, with 1 million votes get 11 seats when a widely based national party with 5 million or 6 million votes, because it is widely based, will get only 13 seats?
Therefore, although it is said that the system that we advocate would produce these terrible effects, they are with us already. Changing the system is the one way of ensuring that we would not get them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do some more thinking on the matter. He says that it would be terrible because we might get National From Members and Communist Members. However, if there is a substantial minority of such people in this country, it is better that people like that are represented here. For example, I think that it is much better that people from Northern Ireland with whom I find myself in tremendous disagreement are in this Houes. It is much better than having them driven underground by the system.
I want briefly to turn to three points. I want to illustrate why the electoral system that one uses is of tremendous constitutional importance in this country. When the Government of Ireland Act was introduced in 1920, the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, was determined on one thing—that the Catholic minority in the North and the Protestant minority in the South would be fairly represented. He was also determined that the religious affiliations of the citizens, North and South, would not


polarise, so that if one was a Catholic one belonged inevitably to one party and if one was a Protestant one belonged to another. To achieve this he introduced proportional representation.
That system has endured very well in Eire. I have no hesitation in saying that it is one reason why religion plays no part in determining the political affiliations of the electors in Eire. There has never been a Cabinet in Eire that has not contained Protestants. Some of the most distinguished Presidents of the Republic of Eire have been of the Protestant faith, the most recent being Erskine Childers. In the North, the system was introduced, and for very narrow reasons it was abolished by the Unionists in the late 1920s—frankly, because Lord Craigavon said that unless it was abolished, after the next election the Opposition would be returned with more seats than the Government. What he meant was that the Unionist Party was in danger of splitting—it would probably have been the best thing for Irish politics if it had—between a moderate Tory and extremist Tory party.
Be that as it may, the system was abolished, and from that moment the Catholic minority, partly by the gerrymandering of boundaries, was permanently under-represented. That was one of the causes of frustration. Much more important, because it was frustrated in this way the electorate polarised on the basis of religion. If one was a Roman Catholic one became a nationalist or Republican and if one was a Protestant one automatically became a Unionist.
In 1973 the then Secretary of State reintroduced PR long before the Sunningdale package, with the full support of the Labour Opposition of the day, in order that we might try to end that polarisation and have all shades of opinion represented. I emphasise that it was because there was a fair electoral system that we were able to have a convention representing all shades of opinion, as a result of which, following Sunningdale, we were able to get a power-sharing Executive going. The reason it fell to pieces some six weeks later was that, whilst there was a fair representation of all shades of opinion in Ulster, there was then a Westminster-type election under the first-past-the-post system, and although only 51 per cent. of the vote was

against Sunningdale, 11 out of 12 Members were returned for that 51 per cent. and those 11 immediately claimed a mandate for saying that there was no support for power-sharing. The effect of that election was to frustrate the first hopeful signs that a meaningful degree of power-sharing could be brought about. Therefore, I believe that the electoral system has a profund effect. I want to put this in the context of Scotland and Wales in particular, where there is another great constitutional problem that the House will ignore at its peril.

Mr. McCusker: The removal of proportional representation in the 1920s did not radically alter the composition of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. Whilst there may be arguments for proportional representation, they de not include the argument that it should be used as a device to thwart the will of the majority.

Mr. Thorpe: No one has ever suggested that proportional representation is a device to thwart the will of the majority. As far as I know, no member of any political party in Northern Ireland wishes now to revoke it. That is a great tribute to the efficacy of the system.
However, I do not want to become too enmeshed in Irish history. Being half Irish— [Interruption.] The better half, from the South—I could go on for ever.
The Tories abolished PR simply because the Unionist Party was splitting into two halves, between the moderate Tories, the Faulkner-O'Neillites of today, and the extremists of the Lord Brooke-borough type. Changing the electoral system meant a change in the whole system. Northern Ireland politics became far more monolithic than ever before when the first-past-the-post system was introduced.
This leads me on to the one unanimous recommendation of Kilbrandon, that we should have the PR system for the election of the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Why? Let us look at the example of Quebec. The Quebec separatists, albeit saying that they were in favour of secession from Canada only after a referendum. but clearly a secessionist party, had four pro-Canada parties against them, and so the pro-Canada vote was split four ways. Under our glorious system, that meant that the separatists needed only


two-fifths of the vote to secure two-thirds of the seats.
Precisely the same thing could happen in Scotland. It will not necessarily be the nationalists who gain. It may be the Labour Party, or any other party. In the first Assembly election a party securing only 30 per cent. of the vote could have the majority of the seats and say that it had a mandate for secession or watered-down devolution or for saying that the system did not need amendment. That is the worst possible way to start off devolution. Therefore, we ignore the importance of the electoral system used for the Assembly elections in Scotland and Wales at our peril.
The Government have come up against the problem elsewhere. They secured an extra seat for the European Parliament—81 seats instead of 80—so that the Catholic minority could be represented in the European Parliament. They said "It is terribly important", and our European partners replied" We'll give you another seat". Then some of our partners said "We have given you an extra seat. What makes you think that even if the Roman Catholics get a third of the votes under your system—".

Mr. McCusker: Gerrymandering.

Mr. Thorpe: "—under your system of gerrymandering"—I give that to the hon. Gentleman—" they will get one-third of the seats?" The Government said "We can't guarantee it under our system." Some of our European partners are rather fly, and they understand these matters now. Therefore, the Government considered PR simply for Northern Ireland, a three-Member constituency, on the basis that they wanted the minority to be fairly represented. That is the only minority that matters. Under-representation of minorities does not receive much notice unless they resort to violence, and then they are listened to very quickly. I hope that there is not a moral there.
The Government thought the position slightly illogical. They could not say that that minority mattered, that under the system minorities were underrepresented, and they would have PR there but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now they are having to think

of a national list system, which is very difficult even for the Leader of the House to sell. The basis of his argument is that the people of this country are incapable of understanding any system but the first-past-the-post system, that they are not nearly as intelligent as, for example, the people of Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and other parts of the world. The right hon. Gentleman will have a rather difficult time.
I would like to go along with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who made an extremely important speech, in being opposed to referendums, but in this country there must be referendums on certain issues, because there are certain issues which cause divisions within parties as well as across parties and which cannot be put to a General Election. For example, if I were a Labour anti-Marketeer, how would I vote at a General Election if the Labour candidate in my constituency was in favour of the Market? Would I vote for a member of another party because of the cause or would I vote for my party and against the cause?
The problem shows why one cannot have an election on the Common Market issue. How would a Labour pro-Marketeer vote if he had the distinction of living in the constituency of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who spoke against the Market with great sincerity and clarity?
The great thing about proportional representation is that a much greater choice is given to the electorate. Not only is there a guarantee that a percentage of the vote is fairly represented but one can choose between varying shades of opinion within one's party, whether one is on the Left or the Right, whether one is for or against the Market, whether one is for or against devolution.
When the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked whether we really thought that if we changed the electoral system different decisions might be taken in the boardrooms, he over-dramatised, but I do not over-dramatise in answering in the affirmative. The reason why people do not invest in this country is that there is a lack of continuity. Let us take prices and incomes policy, for example. The Labour Government introduced a statutory prices and


incomes policy in 1966–70, so the Conservative Party opposed it. We voted for it. In 1970 the Conservatives said that they were not going to have a prices and incomes policy, but they introduced one in 1973, and so the Labour Opposition opposed it. We supported it. When they came to power, the Labour Government said that they would not have one, but they introduced one in 1975, for which we voted when the Tories abstained.
One needs only a 1 per cent. swing in this country, under our crazy system, to have a totally different Government who will nationalise or denationalise, change from investment allowances to investment grants, and make the most dramatic changes. I believe that there is a majority in this country for certain guidelines. People in business in West Germany know that, although there may be a change of Government, accepted guidelines will be followed, that there are certain rates of tax upon which one can probably base one's investment decisions, that certain forms of industrial democracy may well be implemented and continued. That is the sort of continuity that the PR system would give, not because one creates coalitions but because there is probably a majority for moderation.
Under PR, there might well be different emphases and different agreements. If a minority party found itself holding the balance of power and abused it, it would be cut to pieces in the next election. It is dangerous to phophesy, but I do not believe that either of the two major parties will have a majority after the next election. I think that the Liberal Bench and the Benches behind will hold the balance of power after the next election, under the present system. Therefore, the idea that we get strong government under the present system is wrong. The "discipline" of which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe spoke has already produced six parties. I would have thought that that was enough to go on with, but the hon. Gentleman thinks there may be more.
We have a system which gives a minority of 38 per cent. the right to rule, a system in which a 1 per cent. swing can make the difference between this or that Government, a system in which 6 million people can vote for a political party yet

be virtually disfranchised. As a Liberal Member, I, of course, protest against that system, but not on behalf of Liberal MPs. We are here—we got here in spite of the system. I remember in February 1974, my great anger when I went to see the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because although he had 11 million votes and 296 seats, and was trying to form a Government, I had 6 million votes and an additional 4 million voters but that gave us only three more Members of Parliament. I was not angry for myself. I was angry that in an advanced democracy millions and millions of people could be denied what they had voted for.
It does not matter if the hon. Member for Rushcliffe disagrees and thinks that we are wishy-washy because we were in favour of Europe before the Tory Party had even heard of it or because we were in favour of devolution, on which the Tory Party is still somewhat tremulous. It is basically for the people to decide. I am not so arrogant as to say that people who vote Tory or Labour are wrong. They may be misguided, but they have as much right to be wrong as we have right to be right. A little more of the humility that I have just shown would come well from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe.
All I am saying is that we have an electoral system that, quite clearly, does not reflect the wishes of the majority and therefore the Government of this country do not have that authority behind them to rule. The system frustrates not only minorities but the will of the majority as well. There are large artificial changes from one Government to another and the system increases the concept of adversarial politics. On those precious occasions when the House acts collectively, as it does on many Select Committees, including the PAC and the Select Committees on Estimates and Nationalised Industries the legislature is often highly critical of the Government of the day even though the majority of Members are Government supporters. We deny that sort of spirit from breaking out in the country and in the legislature by this crazy archaic electoral system which no other advanced democracy in Western Europe would dream of using and which will make us the laughing-stock of Europe if we use it for the European Parliament. It could lead to the break-up of the


United Kingdom should we be assinine enough to use it for the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales if that Bill is passed.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: I shall not be long and I shall not yield to the temptation to follow the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) into some of the byways that he explored. The thing that bothers me about this debate—though I am glad that the subject was chosen—is the way in which speakers from the Liberal Bench have tried to establish a link between the poor performance of the country and the electoral system. I do not think that they have succeeded. I share the view put from both sides of the House that the Liberals have tabled a motion which contains a fundamental non sequitur. The Marxists would call it a dialectical leap. I am glad that they are not here today. but that is what it is. The assumption that because things are wrong with government, proportional representation would cure them, is a simplistic one. Even if the Liberals have correctly identified some of the symptoms, their treatment is wholly wrong. And in any case we are really only dreaming, because whatever happens, we shall fight the next General Election on the rules that we have got now, and any sort of proportional representation is strictly for afterwards.
Nor has anyone who has spoken today in support of proportional representation been able to show how it would increase the power in the hands of Parliament in the realities of today's political situation. I do not see, for instance, how choosing Members of Parliament on the basis of proportional representation would do anything to tackle the problem of the power that is concentrated in the hands of non-representative trade union leaders. A proliferation of parties must weaken Parliament and hand yet more power over to the non-elected elements in our society.
What has also been depressing is the way in which we have heard speakers fail to identify the way in which individual Members could use the power that is already in their hands. The advocacy of the Select Committee system, by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), was uncon

vincing and muddled. He might have made a beter point had he said that we have a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, that these industries spend enormous sums of money, wield enormous influence and employ vast numbers of people, yet Parliament has virtually no control over them at all. We can of course read the Reports of the Committee, and the House has actually debated one of them in the last four years, but there have been about 20 Reports in all in that time. We know how busy the Committee has been. Its members have been to Sweden, to the West Indies, to Australia, to Japan and to the United States. The Committee's motto ought to be "Join the Nationalised Industries Committee and see the world". But for all the influence it has on the nationalised sector of our economy, we might as well spend the money on something else. And yet it is in our power to make this a great instrument of parliamentary authority, and we should, surely seek to do so.
Then again, this week we have all rightly mourned the loss of the most distinguished advocate of democratic socialism on the Treasury Bench, Anthony Crosland. I was immensely depressed to hear his friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for Education, say that it was Tony Crosland's habit to stay in the House until 2 a.m. to vote and then to work on dispatch boxes for an hour. It ought to be possible for people who are in the business of government to organise their lives more effectively than that. Frankly, I was profoundly sad to hear that, because the one thing that a Minister must not do is overwork.
We feel that because we arc here we must be busy, should we be here at all? Should we not be out in the country, trying to learn at first hand what goes on in the real world outside? And of course there is too much legislation, and too much bad legislation. Civil servants make more work for busy Ministers. I have had exchanges with Home Office Ministers on this subject before. It is tragic that in Parliament's attempt to perform the task of governing the country through the Government it exercises so little discipline over Ministers. There are lessons that we should learn from recent experiences.
Perhaps, again, the people of this country do not care enough about the economy


and they vote for daft things that are fundamentally unfavourable to the health of the economy. To some extent, the electors have the Government that they deserve now, but they certainly wish to be rid of this one at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) complained that Members of Parliament are unpopular. They always have been unpopular, and they always should be viewed with suspicion, but if it is the hon. Gentleman's objective to be always popular, does he really think that that is the right course?
The Liberal Party wants to be popular, but where does that get it? It is in a populist position, where it is all things to all men. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says "Stop the world; I want to get off". I do not accept the proposition advocated from the Liberal Bench this afternoon that if we change the rules and get everybody's second choice into the House in vaster numbers than those now on the Liberal Bench, this will be a better place and we shall have a better-governed country. That is not true. The country does not want more weak or more bad government; it wants better government and less government, and that is what my party and the people of the country will be supporting in the next election. That is the purpose to which we must change and adapt ourselves.
Ultimately, we all have to submit ourselves to the test of elections. That is a good thing, and we should do it more often. Governments should not be allowed to choose when elections take place, and they should not have so long a tenure of office.
In his many quotations, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North missed one. Rousseau's judgment on the scene in Great Britain was that the British people think that they are free, but in reality they are in chains. The only time that they are free is when they are electing their representatives at General Elections. The sooner that day comes, the better for us all.

6.0 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: On Monday, I shall have been a Member of

Parliament for three years. That is not quite long enough to have become embittered by lack of preferment nor too short a time for me to have a view on the way this place works.
My three years can be broken down into three phases. In the first six months I was so suffused with self-satisfaction at having got here that I viewed everything through rose-coloured spectacles and was prepared to take a panglossian view of its imperfections. I think that this attitude is shared by most new Members.
In the second phase I took a closer look and slowly, by a process of osmosis throught the pores, I became astonished at the systems within the House. It struck me that most of my colleagues who had been here much longer than I seemed to be putting up with it, presumably out of utter conformity or resignation with the system or because they had learned to work it. I assumed the latter and this phase lasted for about 18 months.
It then became quite clear that my colleagues had not learned how to work the system. This phase was helped when, for reasons that escape me, I was made a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, which was almost totally inhabited by Dr. Panglosses of various parties, all of whom seemed to believe that we were living in the best possible of worlds.
Having decided that my colleagues were not satisfied with the system, I asked why they were not making an enormous row and bouncing up and down saying that this hotch-potch should be changed. The answer for a Government Back Bencher is simple. We have an Executive chosen from a legislature which is largely composed of people who want to be members of the Executive. If I may use the vernacular without causing offence, the Executive has hon. Members by the short and curlies and the people who are used for that purpose are the Whips.
It was a long time before I appreciated that I had to shake off the Whips if I was to have any independence and freedom in the House. As long as we have a system in which the Executive rules hon. Members because they desire to be members of the Executive, all Governments will get their legislation through, no matter how ludicrous, ill-thought-out, or ill-prepared it may be.


Having reached this view, I began to consider whether our electoral system was necessarily the best. I believed that it was a splendid system; it was the system that got me here and I had a vested interest in it. However, when one examines the power that it gives to the Executive, might not another system which does not give that power be exactly the sort of change that we need?
With due respect to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), he enumerated all the virtues of our system and the vices of the Continental system. I am not convinced that we are better governed than other European countries, despite all the virtues of our system. In fact, it could be said that some European countries have done better than we have in the last 25 years—only marginally maybe, but nevertheless better. It does not follow that our system, whatever its virtues, produces the best results.
If it is not the case that reforming ourselves will reform the rest of the country, why are we setting about such things as the Bullock Report and industrial democracy? If we are not prepared to look at democracy here and if we do not set about reforming ourselves, why should we expect others, whether in the boardroom or anywhere else, to reform themselves?
I recognise that the main parties have a vested interest in the current electoral system. I have a vested interest in it because if it is changed I might find myself out of Parliament. However we must look clearly at the system that we must use in Europe and that must be used if we devolve powers to Scotland and Wales or to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I accept the contention of the Liberal Party that it is impossible to think that we could have 81 Members in the European Parliament with none of them being a Liberal. That would clearly be ludicrous. The smaller the number of Members being elected, the more ludicrous that system becomes and the more likely it is that only major parties will be represented. We have to rethink our electoral system.
We must look at our own procedures and do something to ease the pressure

on hon. Members and particularly on Ministers. It is ludicrous that the payroll vote, which comprises the people who govern the country, should be the vote that spends the longest hours here into the early hours of the morning, because those hon. Members have to do so. In Belgium, all votes, except for committee stages, take place at 2.30 on Thursday afternoons. There is no reason why we should not adopt that system. It would allow Ministers to work proper hours and we should have time to do the things that really matter in our constituencies and in the House. The country would be no worse governed. It would not make a jot of difference.

6.8 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) will allow me to express some envy of him. On Monday, he will have been here for three years. I have to confess that I am in my thirty-second year in the House and it may be that my views will be slightly tinged by my experiences, which have been fairly varied.
I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member said, but I do agree with him that we should examine our democratic processes from time to time to see whether they can be improved. The method by which we are elected cannot be exempted from that scrutiny. That is why we should all be grateful to the Liberal Party for having chosen this subject on their shared Supply Day. It has been an interesting and stimulating debate, though it seems to have been a debate largely about a choice of evils.
The right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) has pointed out what may be considered to be the danger of the present system—that it enables the extreme Left inside the Labour Party to dominate what is otherwise a coalition of that party. Also, the Labour Party received only 38 per cent. of the votes polled at the last General Election, and 28 per cent. of the support of the whole electorate, yet we have seen something approaching a revolution in social and economic policy in the past two years.
I say that it is a choice of evils because, as was pointed out by the Hansard


Society's commission on electoral reform, about 300 systems have been put into practice or considered. Some are better than others. Some have been mentioned today. None is perfect. I shall say something about several of them.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was candid in implying that there is a choice of evils. He was also candid in saying that proportional representation, whichever form it takes—he did not specify a particular form—is no cure-all for our economic ills. I was, however, surprised when he pleaded that we should get away from the adversarial system. If any Member would be miserable under any system that was not adversarial, it would be he! However, I take comfort in the fact that when he dealt with the Conservative Party he praised us with his faint damns.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, our democratic processes, including our voting system, are evolving. For example, we had the Speaker's Conference, presided over by Mr. Speaker King, and of which I was a member, which considered electoral reform in the late 1960s. The change in the voting age resulted from its recommendations. The only method of election that we were asked specifically to consider was the single transferable vote. Having done so, we recommended, by 19 votes to one—that one being the Liberal member of the conference—that there should be no change.
Speaking for myself, I am still opposed to that system for elections to this House, but it may be suitable for other Assemblies. The last Conservative Government introduced it for the Northern Ireland Convention, and the Kilbrandon Commission recommended it unanimously for the Assemblies for Scotland and Wales.
Britain's economic performance under the present Government has been tragic. In spite of all the pretension and all the hopes thrust upon us by the Government, inflation is rapidly worsening again; unemployment continues at a high level, causing misery and waste of manpower; we owe to our friendly capitalist competitors vast debts which it will take years to repay; and last month we had the worst trade deficit in our history. Indeed,

I think that it is appropriate to say that we have never had it so bad in peacetime.
The motion says that our
economic performance is gravely hindered by a system of government which grants majority power to alternating minority parties;".
I think that for the words "system of government" the motion should have read "system of voting". They are not exactly the same thing, but we know that the Liberal Party is referring to the system of voting from the second part of the motion.
When more than two parties are competing for votes, no party is likely to get a majority of votes under any voting system. The best way in which we could be sure that the party with the majority of seats in this House had the support of the majority of the people would be to have only two parties—a situation that could be achieved by the Liberals doing what I and some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have done. We joined the Conservative Party. We were not only welcomed but—if I may reveal my immodesty—we were, indeed, respected, and I hope that we still are.

Mr. Thorpe: I shall not go into the period when the right hon. and learned Gentlemen was nationalised as a National Liberal, and subsequently denationalised, but I must point out to him that even in an election in which there are only two parties it is still possible for the minority party to become the Government. The most tragic example of that is South Africa. In the General Election there, in 1947, the Nationalists got a minority of the votes but a majority of the seats. From that has flowed many of the problems of Southern Africa today.

Sir D. Renton: What the right hon. Gentleman says can happen, but only in the event of an exceedingly close result, such as the one we had in 1951. Then, the Conservative Party got six more seats than the Labour Party but 0· per cent. fewer votes. There was also the occasion, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember better than anyone—the February 1974 General Election—when the Labour Party got four seats more than the Conservative Party but 0·8 per cent. fewer votes. Thus, what the right hon. Gentleman says


can happen, but only with these fantastically close results, and it will not always happen even then. There was a very close result in 1950, for example, but it did not happen.
One is bound to say that if a different system of voting had nevertheless produced a Socialist Government, our economic performance would have been just as bad as it has been because it was a Socialist Government. They would have introduced nationalisation, State control, high taxation and vast public expenditure, like all Socialist Governments do. Therefore, I feel that there is a fallacy in the motion, and that it does not necessarily follow that economic performance is hindered by the system of voting, even if it does grant power to alternating minority parties, as another system might also produce minority Governments, including, alas, possibly, on the swing of the pendulum, another Socialist Government.
The second part of the motion calls for
the reform of the voting system
The Conservative Party has an open mind on this and is not unsympathetic to further consideration of the matter, but on an all-party basis. At both the General Elections in 1974 we committed ourselves to having a Speaker's Conference on electoral reform, and that remains our position as a party. We are not prepared to commit ourselves at this moment to any particular system of voting, and it is significant that the motion does not do so. I was glad to learn that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) was clear that the alternative vote is not the most favoured system among Liberals. It used to be at one time.

Mr. Pardoe: Never.

Sir D. Renton: I am glad to hear that. The Liberals have a most convenient way of covering every situation. I have heard Liberals argue in favour of that system, and in my constituency, and I am glad to hear that it has not officially ever been party policy. For the sake of the record, it is worth repeating what that great former Liberal who became the greatest Conservative once said—that the system

of alternative voting was "the worst of all possible plans", adding:
The decision of 100 or more constituencies, perhaps 200, is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."—[Official Report, 2nd June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 106.]
I hope that thereby he damned forever what must, I agree, be an exceedingly bad system.

Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform us who that was?

Sir D. Renton: I thought that I had done so. It was Sir Winston Churchill.
A few weeks ago, we had a most interesting discussion, late at night, in Committee on the Scotland and Wales Bill, on a proposal to apply the additional member system to the Assemblies. That is certainly worthy of further discussion by a Speaker's Conference. There is also the present French system of the second ballot. I concede that that is not PR, but it has brought remarkable stability and decisiveness to French politics after years of frequent changes of Government and political instability and turmoil. I would have thought that that was also a system which should be considered.
Out of the 300 systems that I have mentioned there would no doubt be others—which are perhaps well tried and are in force abroad—that are also worthy of study.
This is an important issue, on which strong opinions are held, as has been shown by this debate. It will not vanish merely by being ignored or somehow wished away, and the Conservative Party certainly does not pretend that that can happen.
We expect to win the next General Election decisively under the present system of first-past-the-post. In doing so we shall again undertake to convene a Speaker's Conference, so that the matter can be fully and fairly considered in the light of modern experience. Therefore, although we do not agree with the exact wording of the motion because of the fallacy in it that I have mentioned, and because of some of the implications which have been dawn from it in the course of the debate, we do welcome the discussion on this matter which the motion has provided. We shall take note of the views


expressed in this debate and we stand by our commitment to another Speaker's Conference.

6.22 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brymnor John): Perhaps I can redress the balance, because the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) alleged that all Ministers were programmed by the box. Perhaps I shall make less of an ex cathedra speech than that of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
The debate has ranged widely over a number of issues that arc not within the terms of the motion. Many of them reflect the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I was asked to answer the debate in the mistaken belief that the motion meant what it said rather than its being a vehicle for a wider debate.
In common with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), none of us who witnessed the tragic death of Anthony Crosland, and many other facets of our Government, would be so arrogant or presumptuous as to suggest that our present system is ideal or that it did not need to be looked at.
Although people outside may espouse this cause we must have due regard to the complexity of the subject, because reform of Government is not solely a matter of remedying the voting system and, thereby, remedying other matters of government. I do not believe that it would be anything other than a serious disillusioning if people were led to believe that a reform of the voting system would lead to a reform of every other facet of our life.
I stand beside the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who warned about the danger of denigrating the present system too much. I accept, and I have acknowledged, its imperfections But it has proved to be a resilient and adaptive system, which does not deserve the denigration and over-statement that has been characteristic of some statements from the Liberal Bench this evening.
I want to mention the moving tributes paid to the power of the House of Commons, and its power over the Executive. I remind the Liberal Party that when the House of Commons considered PR in the most recent debate it rejected that

system by a large majority. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a three-line Whip."] If 221 votes to 25 is the result of a three-line Whip I should be a little frightened of one-line Whips.
I should like to deal with the end of the motion before I refer to the beginning. It states that the reform of the voting system gives effect to the wishes of the people. That presupposes that there is only one wish of the people when electing a representative. I concede that some people think that the electoral system is unfair. But I do not believe the public opinion polls which state that the majority of people take that view even at the moment.
The second thing that people are looking for is the election of an individual to serve their constituency—a man to be their MP. The connection between an MP and a district is not only an invigorating part of our democracy but it also reduces disillusion in the democratic process and reduces the estrangement that people feel with the democratic process and enhances their involvement.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro) rose—

Mr. John: I shall not give way. I started my speech at a late hour and I understand that another Member of the hon. Gentleman's party wishes to wind up. The next point I wish to make is that the single transferable vote system, so beloved of the Liberal Party at the moment, is one that would lead to large multi-Member constituencies.

Mr. Thorpe: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. John: I shall come on to the right hon. Gentleman's interjection. I was saying that in any part of the mainland of the United Kingdom this would lead to a number of effects. It would weaken the geographical connection which most constituencies have with their Member of Parliament because it has been calculated on the Scottish basis that everything north and west of the Great Glen would be two constituencies if one is to have equality of representation and roughly the same number of people electing their Members of Parliament.
Secondly, because a constituency had a number of Members, there is no longer an individual with whom an electorate


has any connection. That may not affect the central party machine, but it must enhance the power of regional party executive rather than the individual because many of the selective processes for candidates would take place in areas which did not have the faintest idea about people from other areas and one small area in a large constituency could easily dominate the representation.
The third thing that the electorate wants is some sort of certainty about its government.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Minister expressed the view that the STV system had disadvantages and that that system is not relevant. What about the additional member system which is in existence in Germany and which has been suggested by the Commission sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Blake? Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Mr. John: I am commenting on the terms of the motion. I do not think that any system is free of difficulty. The additional Member system, in particular, divorces the additional Member from the electorate. Some people have suggested that he might be free to take into account wider considerations, but the fact is that the additional Member system does contain many of the difficulties that I have described.
I was talking about certain government. I am saying that although the narrow majority tends to militate against my argument, I believe that the probable result—this is where the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and I disagree—rather than the possible result of PR would be a coalition government. I believe that would lead to a number of ills.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that if people vote in a certain way that must be what they wish. Although they may vote for the Liberal Party they are not necessarily expressing a wish for coalition government. I do not think that his logic on that point is right.
Certain ills flow from having a coalition Government. There is the question of negotiation of portfolios and particularly the blurring of the responsibility that an electorate can put upon a Govern-

ment. It hardly needs to be said, in view of what the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said in his party political broadcast about the shortcomings of the Labour Government and the great future that he foresees for a Conservative Government, but I agree that in the present system it is easy for the electorate to fix responsibility upon the Government.
Where a coalition Government exists, particularly if more than two parties form the Government—it might easily be so—the cross-blame and assumptions of virtue that occur at an election as to what went right or wrong in the last Parliament would mean a blurring of responsibility of which the electorate could not make use in forming a reasonable judgment of what happened.
That process leads to the country not getting the measures that it needs. I think that we have all approached this matter in a moderate way. But there is an assumption that there must be a watering down of anybody's proposals if they are to be right. I do not think that that assumption in economic terms is necessarily right. In a coalition Government we are likely to see not measures which the country needs, but measures which everyone in the coalition can agree upon, which are likely to be the lowest common denominator. The coalition Government will proceed at the pace of their most junior partner. That is precisely the wrong kind of approach.
Another point concerns the diminution in the quality of the vote which is cast. I acknowledge that the quality of the vote cast may be diminished by the fact that many people vote for a party and may get a disproportionate number of Members of Parliament. But the quality of the vote is also diminished if, having voted for a candidate—heaven knows why people vote for candidates; often they vote against other candidates—because of the policy or a combination of policies which he espouses, a coalition is to be entered into. In that event, the reason why an elector votes for a party may be abandoned not because of the test of the ballot box, but because of the negotiation for compromise in joining a coalition. In other words, it will not be amenable to the test of the ballot box, but will be susceptible to abandonment in the negotiations in some back room to form the Government.
Having dealt, I hope sufficiently, with the point that the wishes of the people are not necessarily coincidental purely with reform of the voting system or "fair" electoral system, I turn to the first part of the motion which is an unsupported assertion. It states
that Great Britain's economic performance is gravely hindered by a system of government".
No real connection has been adduced between those two matters. Certain examples have been produced, but no clear connection has been adduced between those two elements. I do not believe that they have a particular connection.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North said that lack of continuity is the great evil, and that is the evil to be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman said that investment was frightened off by a lack of continuity of government. A more stable pattern of government would produce a better result.
The hon. Member for Woking put forward a different view. The hon. Gentleman said that we should have more frequent elections and should not leave the power in the hands of the Executive. That seems dangerously close to inviting the same lack of continuity of which the right hon. Member for Devon, North complained.

Mr. Onslow: I did not have time to expand my argument. One of my beliefs in more frequent elections is that governments would then have less time to do bad things.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the ills of the Government are put right more by the sins of commission than of omission. I am not sure that is right. Governments of both major parties since the war have wrestled with an intractable series of economic problems. That does not mean that the Government who carry out policies are necessarily to be held in less esteem than the Government who do nothing and hope that the problems will go away. The lesson of the modern world is that problems of that kind do not go away.

Dr. Phipps: That is the view which I should have taken in the past. If there is no correlation between our system of government and economic performance,

what are the arguments against changing the governmental system?

Mr. John: I remind my hon. Friend that I was dealing with a change in the voting system and laying in the hands of the electorate all the economic ills of this country. I accept that we can then consider the rights and wrongs of the system on their merits, but we cannot do so under the imperative of economic ills which probably have not flown from that particular system. We need to consider the system of government on its own merits rather than as the cause of our economic ills. I think that my hon. Friend and I would probably reach agreement on that matter.
Economic troubles and the voting system are demonstrably unconnected. For example, the United States and Canada have first-past-the-post systems and they have not performed badly in economics. In some countries which have proportional representation economic performance is not good.

Mr. Hooson: Name them.

Mr. John: I think that it would be unkind in our new European rôle for me to name partners, despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery may try to attract me into doing.
Let us consider the convolutions undergone in forming coalition Governments. There are occasions when coalitions take a very long time to form in some countries. There may be months of negotiation. Two or three people may be asked to form governments, but they may have to confess their failure. What do the Liberals think would be the effect on the pound of such protracted uncertainty and evidence that nothing was happening in the country? I think that it would have the most devastating effect.

Mr. Hooson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. John: I should like to develop this point before the hon. and learned Gentleman exercises extra-sensory perception about what I am going to say. A coalition Government, which would be difficult to form and take months of negotiation, would have a bad effect on the economic performance of this country. So far from the present system hindering economic performance, the suggested alternative might have an equally ruinous effect.

Mr. Hooson: Will the hon. Gentle. man give an example of a country where this system has had an adverse effect on its currency? For example, has the mark ever been adversely affected during the forming of a coalition in Germany?

Mr. John: The hon. and learned Gentleman quotes the example of a coalition which is announced in advance of an election. That is the exception. I do not think that examples such as Italy or the Netherlands, where there have been protracted negotiations for coalitions, have been particularly attractive in that respect.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that it would be better if we took longer in forming new Administrations? Perhaps we should take the example of America, where the incoming President has two or three months to build up his team. Often the mistakes in government are made in the first two or three days when the appointments are announced. I think that is a good argument for taking longer in discussions when forming a Government.

Mr. John: In fact, I was not chosen within the first two or three days. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has me in mind when he gives that example. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the example of the United States is that of a lamed and enfeebled outgoing Administration and an incoming Administration that has much glamour but does not enjoy any power. At the time of the hand-over—despite the rather greater efforts that have been taken on this occasion—there is a sudden realisation that responsibility rests upon the new administration. Mistakes are just as likely to be made by an Administration formed over a fairly long period as by an incoming Government who are formed rather more quickly.
I agree that the motion has sparked off a most interesting debate but I believe that it should not be accepted by the House. I submit that it is wrong in its premises, deficient in its logic and misleading in its conclusons. As a consequence the motion might be read as yet one more conjuror's illusion, giving the impression that if we change one thing

everything else will follow. It would be harmful to follow such a course.
I hope that the House will recognise that everyone desires to have the most efficient legislature with tolerable conditions for Members of Parliament and Ministers. We are not masochists. We believe that sometimes intolerable strains are put on all sections of the House. It is because we do not believe that what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has said is necessarily a solution to the problem that I hope the House will not accept the motion.

6.42p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: For a Liberal to find himself debating electoral reform twice within a month in the House is quite a remarkable experience. In a sense the debate, which has been in the main extremely constructive, has been a continuation of the debate of 25th January. For that reason I think it is a good beginning to what I have to say to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on 25th January. The hon. Gentleman knows that I intend to refer to his remarks. I do so because it was generally agreed that he made the most effective case against proportional representation that was made that day on either side of the House or, for that matter, on either Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman advanced four principal arguments. First, he said:
it will not advance the cause of democracy in the United Kingdom
That, of course, is not an argument but an assertion. However—and it is something that has not been mentioned very much this afternoon—we would surely be foolish to ignore that only France and Britain of all the democracies in Europe do not have a proportional system of voting. France will introduce such a system very soon for its elections to the European Parliament. Secondly, it is worth noting that the countries now returning to democracy after the experience of dictatorship—for example, Greece, Portugal and Spain—all intend to employ the proportional system. Greece and Portugal have already done so and Spain will do likewise.
What happens elsewhere is relevant. It was a sad moment when the hon.


Member for Dudly, West (Dr.Phipps) referred to what is done about divisions in the Belgian Parliament. Everyone laughed heartily. Why was that? Perhaps it was because they did not know anything about what happens in the Belgian Parliament. Perhaps it was because they are not very much interested in what happens in any Parliament other than the British Parliament. It is about time that we stopped being so insular in our approach to constitutional matters.
The second argument that the hon. Member for Derby, North advanced in his criticism of what he referred to as "fancy franchises" was put in this way:
But it is not the sole or prime function of the United Kingdom Parliament to represent a microcosm of the nation.
If it is not, what is the point of this Parliament? What is its function? Is it to govern without concern for its own representative character? It is not enough to say, as the hon. Gentleman went on to do, that many Members stand out against their constituents in supporting policies that would be opposed by 60 per cent. or even 80 per cent. of the constituents. When such stands are taken they are almost always on social issues and not matters of party policy. On matters such as capital punishment and abortion the parties have traditionally avoided taking official views. That argument is not only incredible but quite untenable.
The hon. Member for Derby, North raised a third argument that has been advanced today by many hon. Members including the Minister of State. It is said that a Member of Parliament forms a precious and vital link with his constituency. What form does this great link take that everyone talks about continuously? Obviously there is a geographical link in that each of us, in a sense, is involved in trying to get a fair share, or possibly more than a fair share, of the national cake for the bit of land that we represent and the people who happen to live in the area. Secondly, there are those who come to us with complaints about the wrong working of the system in any particular sense. But in my experience—I have spoken about these matters with other hon. Members—the public do not go to Members of Parliament on a great many occasions to argue about policy.
I do not think it is very likely that Labour Members, or Liberal Members, bombard the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science to urge the virtues of comprehensive education. That is for the simple reason that everyone knows his attitude on the matter. It is known already and, therefore, it would be a waste of time to take such an approach. In the same way I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science does not find her postbag full of argument about the link that Members form with the public to be dubious.
In my experience people do not write a great deal to criticise federalism, for example, although it is known that this is the view that I take. I find the argument about the link that Members form with the public to be dubious.
The second contention in respect of the relationship between the Member of Parliament is that of identity. On both sides of the House we know of examples of hard working Members who have had a good record of dealing with constituency cases who have been swept out on a tide one way or the other. This happens repeatedly. If it is so important for the elector to relate to his individual Member, why does that so often happen? I should argue as have others—indeed, it was argued by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—that it is because most voters are more interested in the Prime Minister and in the Government of the country than anything else.
If the relationship between Member and elector is so important, why is it that the turnout in the British General Election is lower than that in countries that apply the proportional system? In the previous General Election in this country there was a 72·8 per cent. turnout whereas there have been turnouts in the 90 per cent. in Austria and Italy. In the 1972 General Election in Germany there was a 91 per cent. turnout.

Mr. Bidwell: How far is the hon. Gentleman discounting the aspect of personal following that a Member must inevitably build up if he is as diligent as the lion. Gentleman suggests most of us are? Surely the personal following that is built up over a longish period has a bearing on the result. Surely that applies particularly to some of his Liberal colleagues who have sat on the Liberal


Bench from time to time. Is it not the case that they have been elected as individuals rather than on the basis of being attached to a Liberal Party that very few people understand these days?

Mr. Johnston: I regret that the hon. Gentleman's understanding of these matters does not extend to the Liberal Party.
I do not deny that individuals do succeed in holding seats that otherwise would not be held. I accept that that would not happen if they had not been of such effective calibre, but that does not deflect me from my argument.
The fourth argument that the hon. Member for Derby, North advanced on 25th January has been used again and again throughout this debate:
The essential problem of democracy is how to face up to hard choices.
That is what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe was also dealing with. The hon. Member for Derby, North said a little later:
If we have a belief, we have to take sides in the argument."— [Official Report, 25th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1316–21.]
At that time the hon. Gentleman was attacking the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), and it is noteworthy that there are no nationalists present for this debate. The hon. Member for Derby, North mentioned the question of nationalisation of steel and said that he did not know whether the nationalists were for or against it. He excluded the idea of any compromise approach. That is not true because we remember the days when gas was nationalised by the first Labour Government after the war. There was then an opportunity to introduce co-ownership of a kind because there was a considerable degree of co-ownership within the gas industry. Apart from the exclusion of any compromise, what the hon. Gentleman and others appear to be saying is that it is more essential to democracy that a decision is made than any question of how many support such a decision. We reject that view. It is of the utmost importance to have in mind how many people support a decision.
I turn to a number of points made in the debate. I refer first, almost reluctantly, to the archaic argument put forward by the right hon. Member for

Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—because it is typical of many points of this nature made in debates. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the Liberals did not do something about the situation when they were in power. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Liberals were last in power almost half a century ago, and that at that time there were even members of the Labour Party who did not favour votes for women. We are now dealing with affairs half a century later.
It is worthwhile recording the actual record of the situation. In 1909 Asquith appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the electoral system. The Commission reported in 1910, but its recommendations were not considered because of the major constitutional crisis which then arose over the House of Lords and also because of the Irish question. The war then intervened. The main reason that this matter was not pursued, apart from the fact that the Liberals lost office afterwards, was that electoral reform before the war was not so pressing and urgent because there were only two main parties. When there are two main parties in evidence, the first past-the-post system works to a degree. If there is evidence of a third or fourth party, the system ceases to work in the same way. Also, it was the practice at that time to have a free vote on constitutional issues.
In 1916 a Speaker's Conference took place and a Bill was carried in the House by Lloyd George and Asquith in 1917 calling for legislation on the recommendations. The whole thing foundered because of the dispute between the Lords and the Commons over the respective merits of the alternative vote, which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, from the profoundity of his knowledge, equates with the single transferable vote, and STV itself.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was suggesting that economic problems would go away with the coming of proportional representation. That is part of the ridicule type of argument—I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Lewes was ridiculous—which runs "How is your rheumatism? Have you tried PR?" Certainly economic problems will not go away with the coming of PR, but we con-


tend that such problems would be easier to tackle. That the hon. Member for Lewes emphasised the geographical nature of politics produced by the first-past-the-post system was most relevant.
The right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) emphasised the necessity in this House of repetitive war dances. His references to the history of prices and incomes policies were most apposite.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) exposed the illusion of Parliament as a place for genuine collective capacity for changing the views of the Executive, and he quoted interesting figures to back his argument. I believe that that is the case because the system artificially gives to one group complete power.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe was largely dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). Essentially what the hon. Gentleman did was to make a series of points and reached conclusions that were totally different from those arrived at by all the major commentators on the political scene. He said that the present system resulted in a pull to the centre. That is not a general agreed view. He said that coalitions were formed by large parties, whereas PR would result in pork-barrel politics and fragmentation and the atmosphere of old smoke-filled rooms. The fact is that it is the secret internal coalitions of the great parties in which the smoke-filled room atmosphere operates. Where one has open coalitions between two different parties, one has to justify what one does to one's supporters and the public. That is a far more open and satisfactory way in which to operate than the present system.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Surely what cannot be refuted is that the Labour Party, in its internal attempts to come to a coalition solution and its attempts to reach agreement on policy, certainly does not conduct its affairs in secret or in smoke-filled rooms. Those affairs are only too public. On the other hand, when an attempt was made to form a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives in February 1974, there was something of a mystery. Indeed, that still remains a mystery and it is still disputed.

Mr. Johnston: I do not dispute that for a moment. I am sorry that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not present or on terms of conversation with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because otherwise he could explain the matter clearly.
The hon. Member for Islington, North and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) seemed to suggest that the only reason we were interested in this system is that we would be in a state of permanent coalition. The plain fact is that where coalition operates it is enforced because of the pattern of voting in the country.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) accused us of a dialectical leap. The fact that the hon. Gentleman was unable to perceive my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) seemed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman's powers of observation are not particularly acute. My hon. Friend has argued the link between the economic and voting system in terms of continuity, decision-making, investment and the creation of an atmosphere of reconciliation. All this will not happen immediately.
It is often said that in Northern Ireland where the PR system has been introduced the problems did not go away. Of Course they do not go away immediately, because these things take time to establish themselves, but this system has been established elsewhere with success.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that our system had virtue although not necessarily, if I may paraphrase the hon. Gentleman, all that much virtuosity. I thank him for his reference to the European Parliament. In terms of elections to the European Parliament we shall he compelled by virtue of cur agreement with the Community to have a proportional system of election.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), summing up for the Opposition, made a cautious contribution, that was perhaps indicative of the years to which he drew attention. If the Conservative Party is so anxious to discuss this matter, why has it not so far raised the subject in the existing discussions in the Speaker's Conference? I understand that the Conservative Party is not encouraging or pressing discussion of electoral reform in present circumstances.

Mr. Thorpe: The Conservatives have refused to do so.

Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to eat into the time of the next debate, and I conclude by saying what was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North. Our case is based on three points. First the Liberals believe in representative democracy. The present system produces a Government and Parliament which is unrepresentative and grossly so. More than 70 per cent. of the population voted against the Government or did not vote. That equates the number of people who said in the Sun opinion poll that they favour electoral reform.
Secondly, Liberals believe that only a system that reflects the majority of public opinion can truly claim to have a mandate and be able to govern effectively. We have a situation now where small swings produces big policy changes and instability.
Thirdly, Liberals believe in the need for compromise and they see the present system as making compromise more and and more difficult to achieve by artificially excluding those who seek change and encouraging those who do not. We have a Parliament in which debates are rituals and where the Whips rule. We have a polarised, class oriented two-party system which is increasingly out of touch with reality.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that the Conservative Party was a broad coalition representative throughout the country. Why then did the Conservative Party have only 11 working-class candidates in 1964 and only five in 1974? A total of 85 per cent. of the funds of the Labour Party come from the unions.
The Lord President when answering the debate on 26th January, made a deeply disappointing contribution, but at least from the Minister we have not had jokes about Gladstone and Disraeli. That is something for which we should be grateful. But we have had a profoundly Conservative approach and a repetition of old arguments heard throughout the debate which is why I shall not deal with them separately. The Minister's contribution can be summed up in his own phrase that we must
have due regard to the complexity of the subject.
What dynamism and drive that represents! If that is what we are to expect from the Government we have little hope. But, the need for electoral reform is increasingly seen throughout the country. One day soon we shall have it.

Mr. Pardoe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY FORCES)

7.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move.
That this House takes note of the unabated continuance of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and calls for a further increase in the strength and effectiveness of the Ulster security forces.
With this motion the House leaves the realm of light-hearted fantasy in which it has been enjoying itself for the last three hours or so, and, I am afraid, enters into the area of hard, unpalatable and cruel facts. It is to enable the House and the Government to confront some of these that we have used our opportunity to move this motion tonight.
As to the truth of the first statement in the motion, there is little need of argument. I shall simply mention the fact that civilian casualties in 1976 were much higher than in any previous year with the single exception of 1972, and that even if we feed into that total some adjustment for what are classified as sectarian killings, the picture is not improved. I shall only mention one other figure because it leads us straight into the subject matter of the debate. That is that the deaths of RUC members and RUC reservists were at the highest level of any year and were nearly 50 per cent. higher than in the worst previous year. The House can read more of these details in the quarterly return supplied on 27th January in a Written Answer by the Secretary of State.
There is a further background which is not merely statistical and to which I want firmly to attract the attention of the Secretary of State. That is the profound conviction, which is held throughout the Province, that the Government are doing less than they could, seriously to tackle terrorism and to destroy the IRA. It is most impressive that, to whom ever one talks in Northern Ireland, be they civilian or be they in the security forces, people of a balanced judgment, rational sane people, will seriously tell one that they are convinced that the security forces are being deliberately held back by the orders of the Government from doing what is in their power to do and would be their duty to do, to put an end to terrorism and to defeat the IRA.
I have stated this fact brutally not because I share that conviction. To me it is inconceivable that the Government are doing other than their utmost to end terrorism. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept as a fact this unfavourable background of opinion against which the Government and the security forces are operating. My colleagues and I plead with the Secretary of State to do everything in his power both to analyse the reasons for this miasma—for such it is—and to do everything that he can to dispel and destroy it. The favourable impression—if I may say so—which in his early months he has created, has as yet done nothing to break this extraordinary diffracting medium, through which so many people in Northern Ireland, including the security forces, view their predicament.
I shall risk one suggestion. It is that the Government policy of making arrests, of picking up wanted persons, only when they are reasonably sure of being able to secure a conviction for a serious offence has not been understood either by the security forces who have to carry out that policy or by the public who are witnesses to it.
This, at any rate, must be one of the explanations for the persistent statement, which everyone finds made in Northern Ireland, that the police or the Army know perfectly well that such and such a person is guilty of such and such a terrorist act and yet he walks free as air in the open daylight. I do not for a moment believe that this happens by reason of a decision on the part of the Government that terrorists shall go at large, nor as a result of any slackness or any lack of willpower on their part. That I do not believe. But what is proved is that the policy—sound in itself, for the converse would be disastrous—has simply not been understood, and has simply not been put over either to the public or to the security forces. I do not pretend that that explanation is the sole one, but I am sure that it is one of them. The Secretary of State has the task of combating and reversing this climate of opinion in which he is at present operating.
I turn from a psychological factor on one side to a psychological factor on the other. It is not our purpose in this


debate—at any rate on the United Ulster Unionist Bench—to concentrate otherwise than on the physical elements in the situation. This is not to say that the physical elements are efficacious or even decisive by themselves; but in one debate, it is useful to concentrate upon one aspect of the subject at a time. Nevertheless, one should analyse the state of mind of one's opponent, because it is by destroying the will of one's opponent that wars are won.
The striking characteristic of the state of mind of the IRA, which is the enemy not only of Her Majesty's Government but also of the Government of the Irish Republic as well as of all decent inhabitants of the whole island of Ireland and indeed of the British Isles, is that it lives in an unreal world, in which it is always just about to topple, by means of terrorist acts, the intentions, policies and pledges of the Government of the United Kingdom. This came out clearly in some of the things exposed in the Balcombe Street trial. It is immensely dangerous that this misconception should exist, that only one more push is needed and the whole "get the troops out" brigade will soon be in a majority in Great Britain, the nerve and will of Her Majesty's Government will be broken, and the British people, sick and tired of all this, will be glad enough to pull out of Northern Ireland.
We in this House know perfectly well how fantastiscaly remote such an appreciation is from the reality; and we know that, whatever our personal opinions or aspirations with regard to the future of Northern Ireland may be. But the terrifying fact is that, after so much effort on the part of Government and security forces, the message has not got across to the IRA that it will not win in that way and that there is no possibility of its winning in that way. This means that every stance of the Government—everything which they do, every word which they speak—must be measured in the light of that misconception; for unless and until that misconception is destroyed, the IRA and those who react criminally to the IRA will continue to destroy innocent lives for literally no purpose.
I turn to the physical factors, upon which I shall concentrate for the remainder of what I have to say. I wish

to refer to three aspects of the security forces—first, manpower, secondly, armament and, thirdly, rôle and mutual co-operation.
The RUC concluded 1976 with an increase in strength which was gratifying. It brought the regular force up to 5,253 or 350 more than it had been 12 months ago at the beginning of the year. This was to some extent offset—I shall be grateful if the Secretary of State will comment upon this, because there may be some misunderstanding—by an appreciable diminution in the part-time RUC Reserve, so that the figures, when expressed as a crude total, appear to be less favourable than they ought to be. I am sure that the Secretary of State will give us the reassurance that we require, that satisfactory—as it went—though the record of 1976 was, he will not be satisfied unless he beats it in 1977.
We need as soon as possible to get up to the provisional target—it has been made clear that it is only provisional—of 6,000, which, incidentally, will be twice the level at which the regular RUC stood in 1969, in circumstances for which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were not responsible. The size of the RUC is of obvious relevance; but it may not be fully appreciated that the total force available has a direct relationship to the effectiveness with which any part of it operates in a particular situation. We are not merely chasing establishments when we say that, if we were to pick out perhaps one single factor to which we need to give the highest priority, it would be the earliest achievement of that 6,000 target for the regular RUC and to go on from there afterwards.
There is an additional reason, which I have already mentioned, why this achievement is particularly important. It is that in these months the RUC is being deliberately placed under maximum stress by the IRA. The RUC is the prime target of the attacks of the IRA in this phase. It is all the more important that it should not only be seen to enjoy the support and confidence of the Government and all concerned but that it should have the assurance of our intention to build up its strength at least to that provisional figure, from which I believe we shall have to move on further.
Before I come to the recruitment of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I want to refer


to another psychological factor which again the right hon. Gentleman must recognise, difficult though it may be for him to cope with I refer to the widespread conviction that persons entirely suitable in every respect for recruitment into the security forces are being refused upon trivial grounds or upon the ground of prejudice, or upon some other ground evincing reluctance or unsureness on the part of the Government.
Once again, I say to the Secretary of State that I simply do not believe this. But, equally, I have to contend with the fact that I am confronted, as all of my hon. Friends are in their constituencies, not merely with the general assertion "Oh well, it is no use our volunteering for these Reserves and the UDR because we know perfectly well that the only result would be that our application would be mulled over for months and then thrown out" but also with alleged cases in which persons who are totally fit, willing, loyal, of blemishless character, have been refused enlistment.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot rest upon his assurance, which I believe he can truthfully give, that this is a misapprehension. This misapprehension is a fact which militates against recruitment. My hon. Friends know that this is so. As before, I will make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that he has to go further than he has hitherto gone in taking the individual Members of Parliament concerned into his confidence as far as possible when individual cases are brought before him.
I fully realise the difficulties of my suggestion and I fully understand that many grounds on which would-be recruits are declined ought not to be known, not least for the sake of the persons concerned. But we in this House are, or should be, the public relations officers of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. If we are to help him in destroying the adverse factors which militate against recruitment, he must put us in a position in which we, at any rate, are able, with conviction, to repudiate the allegations with which we meet. We can only repudiate them specifically, since our first line of defence is to ask for specific evidence. But when we are given the evidence and we are not in a position personally to say that we repudiate it, we cannot do much to help. So there is

another unwelcomed load which I place upon the plate of the Secretary of State; but he knows that I do so because to discuss recruitment without mentioning this would be totally unrealistic.

Mr. Max Madden: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for missing his opening remarks but I was very interested in what he has just said. Before he leaves that point, could he tell the House whether he or any of his hon. Friends have submitted these allegations to the authorities and, if so, what has been the reaction? Would he also consider the advisability of creating some sort of appeal machinery to which allegations of this sort could be submitted for possible independent investigation?

Mr. Powell: I shall gladly answer the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that other hon. Members will forgive me if my answer adds a minute or two to my speech. In answer to his first question, the Secretary of State can confirm that my hon. Friends and I regularly put forward cases which appear to us to be inexplicable. So far the reply has been the assurance that the matter has been properly considered, that the discretion of the chief constable or whoever it may be has been properly exercised, and that the Secretary of State is satisfied that this is so. I am willing to accept the word of the Secretary of State. That is what we do in this House. But the result of that formula is that my hon. Friends and I are in no position—I do not say to disclose any particulars—we are in no position to rebut, or to attempt to break down the prevalent misconception.
On the other half of the hon. Gentleman's question, while I and my hon. Friends support the new code of appeal and discipline applying to the police, and would support any system which went as far as possible to guarantee fairness to members of the forces, I must say that I do not see how, in the recruitment of the Armed Forces, it would be possible or desirable for persons who thought themselves aggrieved by not being recruited to be able to appeal against the decision. That would involve, amongst other things, the inconceivable result that recruits could be forced upon Services which actually did not want to have them. So my first reaction to the hon. Gentleman's second suggestion,


which I realise was made in good part, has to be a negative one.
I return to the UDR, where the situation in 1976 was more disappointing. Although it was only a matter of 2½ per cent., we have to face the fact that we had a relapse in the number of persons in service in the UDR. There is also disappointment, which I will not conceal, at the rate of implementation of the Government's decision to increase the full-time element of the UDR. We were glad to hear the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Army at Question time yesterday confirming that the figure of 200 was only a first instalment.
Neverthless we do not believe that this recruitment is at present being pressed ahead with the maximum energy. There may be reasons and there may be difficulties, and I shall mention one or two of them before I sit down, but we ought clearly to have the initial aim for the UDR of 8,000 men, of which no less than 2,000 or a quarter—that is the equivalent of one company in a battalion—would be on a full-time basis. With less than that, or with a different composition from that, I do not believe that the UDR can perform its rôle.
I turn now to armament. The inadequacies of the present armament of the RUC are, I believe, admitted. A certain number of new weapons and new vehicles have been issued to the RUC; but it is our experience that in areas where these weapons and vehicles are most essential—I speak here for several of my hon. Friends—they have either not yet been issued at all or are not issued on a scale which makes it possible for the RUC to be able to operate in the way that it ought to be able to operate without the immediate backing of the Army.
There is no question hereof expecting or asking the RUC to perform the Army's rôle—the two rôles are distinct—but equally it is impossible, with the improving arms of the IRA, to expect the RUC, however courageous it is, to be effective unless it is backed by weapons under its control which are at least the equal of what can be brought against them—and used against them with the advantage of surprise and position —by the enemy whom they have to confront.
The Secretary of State is separated from these questions technically by at

least two administrative layers, namely the chief constable and the Police Authority; but I am sure he will not disavow his fundamental responsibility in this matter by a simple reference —which we have had too often in the past—to the fact that these matters fall within the responsibility of the Police Authority. After all, it would be quite wrong, even if it were possible, for us to quote police opinions at the Secretary of State. Our alternative therefore is to appeal to him to accept his responsibility, for it is his, for the type of armament and the scale of armament of the RUC.
Turning to the UDR, I must say that the reply given yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Army caused very considerable surprise to my hon. Friends and myself. His reply, to the effect that the armament of the UDR was on the same scale as well as of the same quality as that of the Regular Army, is very difficult to reconcile with what we actually know from our own constituencies, where we know as a matter of fact that the scale of transport, wireless sets and other equipment is in no battalion adequate to maintain the whole of that battalion in operation at one time.
If we are being told that the British Army is in such a position that no infantry battalion has the scale of proper infantry weapons to allow it to operate effectively, we must be content to suppose that the UDR is on the same scale; but this is an absurd position in which to place the UDR.
We are magnifying our difficulties by attempting to recruit for forces in which these facts are known and notorious and cannot be concealed by those who serve in them. Again, we understand that a survey last year showed that only 25 per cent. of the wireless sets used by the UDR were in working order. So we ask the Secretary of State to address himself directly, hand in hand with the primarily responsible Secretary of State for Defence, whom we are grateful to see attending this debate, to the task of bringing the infantry battalion equipment of the UDR as soon as possible to the full Regular Army scale. I guarantee that that will have more effect than anything else upon the achievement of the task of recruitment which the Government have set themselves.
I have dealt with armament; but what of rôle and co-operation? The best-armed and equipped security forces will still lack morale and conviction if they are unclear about their rôle or if they find constant ambiguity in the relationship between their rôle and that of the other forces with which they are operating on what should be the same front. I am not denying that there has been some progress in this respect over the last two or three years. A recent parliamentary reply showed that the boundaries between the Army and the RUC have been brought into co-ordination to a very respectable level; but mere coincidence of boundaries is not sufficient to secure the co-operation which is necessary. The evidence that reaches my hon. Friends and myself is that the Army and the RUC, and the RUC and the UDR, are more out of touch with one another than is tolerable in present circumstances.
Once again I will not make that criticism without adding a practical suggestion. I believe that the best way to establish the requisite co-operation is by training together. I am informed—perhaps I am informed wrongly—that there is no training together between the UDR and RUC. Certainly what common training studies there are, are inadequate. Again, what training in common is there, what common exercises are carried out, between the police and the Army? I do not want specific answers; but if this matter is being attended to, the Secretary of State will be able to give an answer which ought to remove doubt. However, the fact is—nobody who goes around in Northern Ireland can be ignorant of it, and we sometimes have very personal experiences which prove it to us—that even in the most dangerous areas in Northern Ireland one security force is often operating without knowing or understanding either the purposes or the intentions of the other security force in the area. That applies to all three—the RUC, the Army and the UDR.
We say, therefore, that the other requirement for recruitment and morale is that co-operation shall be raised to a much higher level, so that all the security forces have the same morale, because they see themselves as doing the same job together. As part of that we must succeed at last in defining the true rôle of the UDR in a way that has not been done

yet. There has been too much uncertainty about this matter—too much to suggest that the UDR is a kind of stopgap for the Regular Army. I understand, for example, that in a number of cases the UDR has been used for taking over static duties from which regular troops have been withdrawn.
We believe that the rôle of the UDR, as part of the Army, is to be a fully-equipped, fully-trained frontier force and that that is what it exists for. It is a full-time and a part-time force, but it is also a regular force of the Army, with that specific task. That must be so clearly understood that it informs the attitude and morale of the whole UDR and is accepted by the other security forces which are operating in conjunction with it.
I am sorry that I have taken up half an hour of the three hours which is all that is available. However, I am sure that the Secretary of State and the House understand that it was necessary, if they are to benefit, and if, thereby, Northern Ireland is to benefit from this debate, for the whole field to be as far as possible comprehensively displayed, at any rate upon the physical side.

7.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and to his party that we should be debating this subject tonight. It is right that the House should spend a little more time on the question of security in Northern Ireland.
I do not agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman said, but I agree that terrorist violence still constitutes one of the worst problems that we have to face in Northern Ireland. I do not seek to conceal that state of affairs, nor do I want to give at any time the impression that Her Majesty's Government—and particularly myself—are complacent about the matter. In the Government book there is no such thing as an acceptable level of violence. There is no question, either, of purposely holding back the forces. Of course, in some areas of Northern Ireland where now, increasingly, the British Army is becoming the buttress of the RUC, it may be being missed. It may be that it is not so noticeable and does not have


the same high profile as it had before Where the RUC is coming to the fore this impression may be gained.
As for arrests by the security forces, I can assure the House that there is no restraint whatever. I would have thought that the security forces must feel that they have to be sure. If they make a mistake—and this particularly applies to the British Army—they know that that mistake will be exploited to the full and that the propaganda backlash could do them a great deal of harm.
It may be argued tonight that we are not making as much headway as we would like in tackling terrorist violence. I think that would be wrong and misleading. We have to look at all the statistics and we have to be clear about the different types of violence, whether they take the form of attacks on the security forces sectarian killings, or attacks on commercial property. If we look at the full range of figures it is clear that the downward trend apparent since 1972, continued generally in 1976, and the sectarian assassinations, which were not greatly, if at all, affected by the so-called cease-fire in 1975, the overall level for 1976 was less than that of the previous year.
There are some other hopeful signs. The quantity of explosives estimated to have been used by the terrorists during 1976 was only a fraction of the pre-cease-fire level. We believe that the increasingly stringent control of explosive substances both here and in the Irish Republic is paying off, and I can assure the House that this is a field to which the Government continue to devote great attention.
I should also record the steadily increasing effectiveness of the police. During 1976 1,276 persons were charged with terrorist-type offences, and there were more in the last quarter than in any of the three preceding ones. These charges included 241 for murder or attempted murder. But even more important are convictions. In 1976, 934 persons were convicted, on indictment, of scheduled offences.
Despite some brutal and well-publicised attacks, many of the favourable trends that I have described have continued into the new year. Good arrests, for instance,

continue to be made. The Chief Constable tells me that among those charged during January were 10 whom he considers to have been organisers of Provisional IRA violence. As hon. Members will probably be aware, two men have now been charged with the despicable murder of Geoff Agate, in Londonderry, and the opening weeks of the new year have seen the charging of loyalist paramilitary gangs who were operating in Ballymena, Bangor and County Armagh, respectively. That is the sort of positive progress that is being made.
The Government are convinced that the policy that they are pursuing is the right one and the one most likely in the long term to bring a final end to violence. But we must not delude ourselves that there is some other magic recipe, as yet untried. There is no guarantee that some other sweeping measures would achieve the desired end, either by their impact on the terrorist or their effect on the ordinary citizen.
A democracy functions by the will of the people and through the rule of law. It cannot behave like a totalitarian State, nor is it right that it should. Its security forces exist to defend the rights of its citizens and not to limit them. I am convinced that the message is getting through to the men of violence, and as I have emphasised time and time again that they have set their feet on a road that goes nowhere. There will be no negotiations with them, and there will be no amnesty; only steady, unrelenting pressure.
This pressure comes from the men and women on the ground doing the job, supported by the right organisation and equipment. In this respect it is the RUC who must shoulder the main responsibility for bringing the terrorists to trial.
During 1976 there were about 2,900 applications to join the RUC, and 581 recruits were accepted. This is the highest recruitment figure for any year in the history of the force, and it follows the 1975 total of 505, which was itself a record figure. But despite the real and apparent pressures on the RUC, the wastage for other than normal retirements or resignations for personal and very specific reasons is not a significant factor in Northern Ireland.
In terms of a percentage of total strength the overall wastage rate has remained broadly constant at around 4 per cent. over the past few years. This record compares favourably with other forces in the United Kingdom. It is an encouraging indication of the morale of the force and its continuing will to serve the whole community. The strength of the force at the end of January was 5,320, and although there is still some way to go before we attain the establishment of 6,500 officers the prospects are good.
I did look at the figures to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred—the 2,000 applications. He complained that despite this we took on only the number to which I have referred. There are divisions in Northern Ireland that are up to establishment, and in those areas people are turned away. In these cases there is a feeling of dissatisfaction. There is also a rigid screening process, and as we approach the level of establishment naturally we go for more experience or a better type of person.
It has been suggested that greater use should be made of reserve constables. I know that the Chief Constable is considering whether the existing strength of the force, including the part-time and full-time reserve, might be more effectively organised to meet demands on their resources. But we should remember that the reality of police work is that the prevention of crime is as important as detection. The very presence of a reserve constable is a deterrent to the criminal, and the officer is thus making a valuable and effective contribution to the maintenance of law and order. If at the same time a regular officer can be released for other duties—and there will always be tasks which can only be carried out by the regular force—the contribution made by the reserve constable is even more worthwhile.
Recruitment to both arms of the reserve is continuing satisfactorily, and the total strength is now 4,678—the full-time reserve strength is 889, and the part-time strength 3,789. The right hon. Member for Down, South is quite correct. There is a slight diminution in the part-time reserve figure, but the overall full-time and part-time reserve figures show an increase in strength and capability.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State be kind

enough to explain more fully why such large numbers of people were turned away from the RUC out of the 2,900 applicants? Is there any one factor which acts most as the sieving process to keep them out?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that I can highlight one factor. Some divisions are up to establishment, and a lot of people are turned away from them. This is one of the recurring problems.
Also, there is a very tough screening process. I would like to see a better blend in the RUC. I would like to see Church and political leaders urging strongly that more members of the minority community should join the RUC, and encouraging more applicants in areas of under-establishment.

Mr. Wm. Ross: The Secretary of State is talking about divisions being up to establishment. I understood that there was no fixed establishment of the RUC. Surely when he is talking about divisions being up to establishment, he is talking about reservists within divisions.

Mr. Mason: There are areas in Northern Ireland where the full-time RUC has been fully catered for. It is true about the RUC part-time reserve. I am content, however, that the Chief Constable and his officers are doing their utmost to get the right type of person, wherever they can, within the right divisions and at the same time maintain an establishment of 6,500.

Mr. Powell: Will the Secretary of State consider with his advisers how some of these general factors could be brought to public notice more than they have been hitherto? This might be part of the answer to the problem that I posed to him.

Mr. Mason: I took note of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said in his opening remarks. I shall see whether I can move in that direction, subject to consultations with the Chief Constable.
In present circumstances the police cannot be left to face unaided the murderous activities of terrorist organisations. Military support is still needed to achieve our long-term aim to restore in the


Province a situation in which the police are solely responsible for the maintenance of law and order as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. Until that time the RUC and the Army will continue to function in partnership. We should remember that intelligence gathered by the Army has been of great value in bringing terrorists before the courts.
We continue to have about 14,000 men of the Regular Army stationed in Northern Ireland. These numbers will be reduced only when the Government are quite convinced that this can be done without risk to the lives and property of the people.
The General Officer Commanding keeps the deployment of troops in Northern Ireland under constant review. The aim is always to have men available—whether it be the SAS or any other unit —where they are needed most to complement police operations. In a number of areas, first-line support for the police is now provided by the Ulster Defence Regiment. This enables Regular forces to be concentrated in the most vulnerable areas.
The Ulster Defence Regiment is being strengthened in line with its increasing operational rôle and particularly to provide a 24-hour cover in its particular areas of responsibility. The House will know that the Government are recruiting as a first step an additional 200 full-time members. This recruitment has now begun, and we shall do everything in our power to reach the target as quickly as possible. I hope that further recruitment beyond that figure can be attained.
The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned particularly the UDR and the recruiting campaign for the part-time UDR. A higher proportion of young men are joining the regiment. In the last 14 months nine of the 11 battalions have been called out for full-time service in the Province, and the reserve of the regiment is operational at weekends.
I assure the House that all arms of the security forces co-operate closely with each other. But the training that is appropriate for military forces is not necessarily equally appropriate for the police.
As for equipment, new radio sets will be supplied, I hope, in satisfactory numbers later this year.

Mr. John Carson: In what areas is the UDR providing a backup force for the RUC?

Mr. Mason: I could not say offhand in which areas the UDR is operating, and I do not think that it would be right, for security reasons, to spell it out in detail. However, I have spent some time with the UDR and I know that men and women of the regiment, at great sacrifice of their time and with undoubted personal risk, are helping to make Northern Ireland a safer place to live in. All elements of the security forces are defending the Province against crime and bloodshed. They deserve the warmest support, not only from this House, but from all parties in the Province, who have a clear responsibility to give them their wholehearted and unambiguous backing.
Many of those who criticise the security forces appear to have little concept of the problems that they face or the dangers that confront them. Their work calls for steadfastness, loyalty and courage, and unyielding application to harsh problems. These are qualities which the forces in Northern Ireland show in fullest measure. I am proud of every arm of the security forces and I am confident of their continuing success.
But tributes are not enough. Earlier, I spoke of the success of the security forces and explained that it is the purpose of the present policies to crush both the morale and the resources of the terrorist. I have also made it clear that in spite of these successes the Government are far from complacent. The deaths and assassinations continue, and words are not enough to describe either the pointlessness of these appalling acts or the depth of sorrow and despair felt by families—indeed, whole communities.
No less wasteful is the continuing spectacle of young men and women coming before the courts to receive sentences that will put them behind bars for many years —perhaps for the best years of their lives. To them and others who may embark on terrorist activities I can only say that if convicted they will pay the full penalty of the law. To those who entice them into these activities with a


specious promise of early liberation and a hero's welcome back into society I would say, "The sooner you stop telling these lies the better it will be for your young people and their families." The sentences of the courts will not be set aside for political considerations; there will be no amnesty; and there will be no question of special treatment for those who claim with unsurpassed arrogance that they have a divine right to maim and to kill their fellow countrymen. Special category status has not been recognised since 1st March 1976. I emphasise once again that there is no going back on that.
Finally, a word about the future. It would be easy, and it may be tempting, to think that because the Government's policy takes effect over a period it is wrong or deficient. Some people urge that the Army should withdraw. I believe that that is the recipe for civil war. Others demand more troops, but sheer numbers are not the most important criterion: rather, we should make available in men and resources whatever is required as necessary. Others talk of harder measures. There is nothing the terrorist would like to see more than for the Government to introduce arbitrary arrests, punishment without trial, punishment for political beliefs and affiliations, and blanket reductions in civil rights. The resentment that these measures would arouse would make the security problem far worse than it is today and prolong it further into the future.
The great strength of the present policy is that it rests on the law—on punishment for criminal acts proved beyond reasonable doubt in open court. Other measures may be needed at times, but in the long run this is the only way that law and order has ever been successfully achieved in a democracy. It is the way that it will be achieved in Northern Ireland. We are determined to see the security problem through to the end, and I tell the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be abandoned.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The House is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues for this debate. I do not wish to take up too much of their time.
In a cogent speech, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had much to say with which I entirely agreed—as did the Secretary of State, who showed considerable resolution in what he said about his aim of bringing organised terrorism under control. That is what we should like to see also.
In passing, I would thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Department and the security forces for the efficient security arrangements which they made for the visit of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday. I was glad to see that in a lunchtime talk in St. Anne's Cathedral the Secretary of State said that there would be no clever solutions or cynical sell-outs in Northern Ireland. That is the kind of language that we are glad to hear him use.
Although we would not accuse the right hon. Gentleman in any way of complacency, statistics are not enough. It is welcome that 10 organisers of terrorism have been arrested by the RUC—this is something that I have often mentioned in the House—but we have still a long way to go. I am inclined to question, as the right hon. Member for Down, South did, that the message has yet got through to the IRA. It is dangerous to think that it has got through already. I do not think that it has. We must keep up this relentless pressure to ensure that it does get through. The right hon. Gentleman should have the help of the media and use all psychological warfare for this purpose. I repeat what I have said before about that.
After all, Northern Ireland today is a sad contrast to 1968, when it had the lowest crime rate in the United Kingdom. We have a tremendous job to do here. I think that the Secretary of State realises that.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman also realises that he has to give the people of Northern Ireland hope that this year will see the beginning of the end of terrorism. I think that is what he meant in his speech. People need some hard evidence that the Government have the will to win. His determination to push the campaign through must be put beyond doubt.
Saying the right things, which the right hon. Gentleman continually does—and I agree with him—is not quite the same


as doing the right things. He has not yet had the opportunity to carry this campaign through in getting control of terrorism. I agree that the rates of conviction are extremely high and I join in his congratulations in this regard to the RUC.
But people do not feel conviction, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, about what is happening in Northern Ireland when Seamus Twomey can go and speak from somewhere in Northern Ireland—on French television, not British television—and make threats against the United Kingdom, saying that the bombing will continue and so forth. There is a glaring gap in security when that kind of thing can happen. We should be glad to hear, since he has made those threats and since he is a member of a proscribed organisation, that if he returns to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State will take certain steps about him. What he has done is a defiance of the whole authority of the law.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I went to an RUC station in Belfast on Monday. We were very much impressed by the improvement in morale there, by the much better spirit and the feeling that they are getting on top of things. We saw many fine young men and girls who had recently been recruited to the RUC during this very successful year. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that there should be a higher target than 6,000. However, we welcome the fact that the RUC is receiving better equipment. The buying of the M1 carbines, for example, and the arming of some RUC vehicles will help them in their capacity to deal with terrorist violence. One cannot put the RUC into the front line without doing that. They must be given those weapons. I note that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State nods in agreement.
Turning to the specialist branches of the RUC, particularly the Fraud Squad, may we have some information on what progress has been made in halting the paramilitary movement into commercial exploitation and protection rackets? The Fraud Squad of the RUC is concerned with these matters. How many convictions have there been against those collecting protection money? Has there been any evidence of an increase in the

willingness of those intimidated to complain to the security forces? Has there been any improvement in that direction?
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked the Under-Secrtary yesterday about the figures for the UDR. The figures were a little disappointing: only 47 new full-time recruits so far to the UDR. The right hon. Member for Down, South makes a strong point that it is disturbing to note that there has been a slow downward trend in the strength of the UDR from a peak of more than 9,000 to its present figure. We ought to repudiate the propaganda attacks which have been made on the regiment. It is a courageous body of men and women and they have been subjected to a tremendous number of attacks during the last few months. We should bear in mind that these people work, and fight only in their spare time. The question of full-time con-rates is extremely important. We would like to know when it is planned to carry out the increase to 1,000 which has been referred to.
I have one or two final points to make. I do not want to take up too much time because I know that many Northern Ireland Members are anxious to speak. Have the Government any information to tell us about the sources of IRA arms and funds? And is any progress being made in cutting off the sources? We were glad to note from a report in the Irish Times a few days ago that the Department of Justice in the United States was taking legal action against the Noraid Committee. We hope that that will have some effect. These are serious matters, as the Minister knows.
Is there any method of reducing the proceeds to terrorists funds from bank robberies in Northern Ireland? The proceeds are currently running at £500,000 a year. That is another main source of terrorist funds.
It seems to me that the Government really need—and I dare say that the Secretary of State is gradually working on this—a strategic plan to bring organised terrorism under control during 1977 and to destroy the hopes of success of the IRA. In this connection, the Irish Times reported on 18th February that the Provisionals were ready for a "ceasefire". I do not know what that means.


Could we be quite sure about it? I think the Secretary of State made it clear, but it cannot be too often repeated, that we shall never be tricked again into a "cease-fire" such as the one at the end of 1974. But we shall pursue the terrorists until they are obliged to stop the bloodshed and get no "deal", as was described in the recent book by Mr. Joe Haines, which was very revealing and indiscreet.
We welcome the remarks of the Secretary of State and we hope that he will be successful in bringing terrorism under control.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The motion speaks of the:
unabated continuance of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland".
That is very true. I have taken part in every debate on Northern Ireland in the three years in which I have been an hon. Member and I intend to try to take part in many more. We are a very select small gathering in these debates we know one another, we talk together and I am sure that, like me, hon. Members receive letters and threats every time they speak.
In my opinion we are getting nowhere. The optimism which we continually show in the Chamber is unjustified and unwarranted. Before I came here the same hon. Members had been saying almost the same things for years and unless there is a change in policy we shall still be here 10 years from now, possibly the same people, saying much the same thing and getting nowhere, just as we are getting nowhere now.
I do not wish to be paternalistic, but when I think of the Northern Ireland Members who have lived in the situation my heart goes out to them because of the horrors they have to face each time they go home. My heart goes out to the people in Northern Ireland, to the children and to the vast Army which we have there. I think that my right hon. Friend said that there we had 14,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland. That is the equivalent of an army division during the war, which could be of the size of 14,000, 15,000 or 16,000 men. It is a vast array of force and it is doing an honourable job to the best of its ability where there is the
unabated continuance of terrorist violence.

We continually discuss this problem as though it were a security problem and not a political one. Hon. Gentlemen know that, to the point of boring them, I am constantly arguing that it is political and has to be discussed as such, and that it is as important as security. Security is vitally important as I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree. It is a vital necessity, it is a partial solution, it is a palliative, but it is not the solution to the problem. It is time that we stopped discussing gaol and gaolings. If we were to put everybody in gaol, what would that prove, except that we had big gaols. We shall have to put more and more people in gaol and the melancholy lists of acts of terrorism, killings and gaolings will go on indefinitely.
If anyone here thinks that a situation will come about where one sides beats the other to its knees, he is dreaming. That is not the solution and it never will be. It was not the solution in Algeria, for instance. The solution is political.
Although I feel deeply about security, the motion is not helpful because it will not result in more and more troops going to Northern Ireland. If they did it could even deepen but not solve the terribly intractable problem which my right hon. Friend is facing as best he can, and it could bring about the hardening of attitudes. I am against a polarisation developing where we always talk about beating the other side, and the other side reciprocates by saying that it will not be beaten. We have heard, for instance, where soldiers on foot duty have searched a street for armaments, and as a result someone is arrested. It is often claimed by people who are arrested in such circumstances that an injustice has been done.
The continuing slaughter comes from both sides. I have spoken to many hon. Members, some within the last 24 hours, and I have heard the same thing. They speak as though only one side does the killing. The terrorists are on both sides. They reciprocate with violence against one another. We shall not solve it by looking at the problem that way. We must not be sectarian. We must try to cross the sectarian divide by building bridges. The cost in blood and treasure is immense. We never talk about that, but what is happening is colossal in terms of money and death and it is mounting at a phenomenal rate.
The situation will not suddenly change. Waiting for something to turn up is the politics of Mr. Micawber. The bloodshed will not suddenly dry up and blow away. It will be there and hon. Members will be asking for more and more security and more and more troops until we discuss this in its political context.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman's participation in these debates is welcomed by my hon. Friends and myself, but there seems to be one factor which he persistently omits. That is the fact that the political object of the IRA is one which is not acceptable not merely to Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom but to the Government of the Irish Republic, of which the IRA is as much the enemy as it is of anyone else. That is what it seems that the hon. Gentleman always overlooks.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is very welcome to intervene at that level, but I must say that I had not overlooked that and I constantly mention where it all sprang from. Hon. Gentlemen know that I want the terrorism to stop. I agree with the Irish Government. I had conversations with some of them last year. One of my hon. Friends led a cross-party delegation to see them. We discussed these matters with the major parties in Southern Ireland, and they agreed with the right hon. Gentleman.
However, let us never forget where this was spawned from. The reality is that the lack of democracy in Northern Ireland, the failure to extend any democracy from the majority to the minority community, spawned the IRA. Until there is real democracy of the type that we have in this country, in which Catholics may vote Labour or Tory and do not vote merely as a separate community, and until there is no sectarian divide between the communities, we shall get nowhere. It is the lack of democracy that has spawned the men of terror. The only thing that will prevent these men from following their path of terror is, in addition to security, more and more democracy.
It will not dry up and blow away. It is time for a change. I shall conclude on this point because hon. Members who live among the men of terror have much to say.

Mr. McCusker: Over the years, my hon. Friends and I have heard the hon. Gentleman continually talking about more and more democracy and about political solutions. Will he talk in practical terms that we can understand? These generalities are all right, but we cannot take matters further by generalities.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is wise about what has happened in Northern Ireland. He knows more about it than I know. However, he knows the reality of what I have said about where all this sprang from. I want a change of mind. I want hon. Gentlemen to know that unless more democracy is extended, the present situation will continue indefinitely.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: I shall finish my speech shortly, when hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity to speak.
Having said that security is a real and continuing problem but that, alongside security, more and more democracy is necessary, I want to disagree with my right hon. Friend. He knows my viewpoint, but I shall repeat it. I believe that unless we engage in a new political initiative, we shall be here in 10 years' time and that the killing will still be going on. We must address ourselves to that matter. I have no solution, but I believe that the various sides must be called to-together around a table to say what they want to say. A famous figure from the Conservative Benches once said "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war".
These discussions must take place between the varying sides without there being engendered a belief that by talking one is somehow weakening. The situation will not suddenly change. It is no good waiting for it to change. I suggest to my right hon. Friend and to Opposition Members, who are motivated by the highest principles, that it is time for a change and time for all the various sides to sit together and to say what they want to say to one another, because a beginning must be made soon.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I had not intended to respond to


the speech that we have just heard. However, I must put it to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) —although I would not welcome an intervention from him—that it would be interesting to note who Kevin O'Higgins had to put to the wall at the very beginning of the democratic State that we now know as the Republic of Ireland. There was no grouse then about a lack of democracy. The IRA was recognised for what it was—and is. Action had to be taken then in a way that was anything but kid-gloved.
I come to the substance of the debate. Before touching briefly upon four points, I pay tribute to the three branches of the security forces in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may well have done this before I arrived in the Chamber. If so, I apologise to him. I associate myself with words of gratitude expressed to the three branches of the security forces. I refer particularly to members of the bomb disposal squads, particularly those who work in the Belfast area. As a Belfast Member, on behalf of my friends and constituents, I pay tribute to the men who daily risk their lives to save industry and lives in the Province. We also associate ourselves with remarks made by the Secretary of State about the UDR and the RUC.
Having said that, I come to the first point that I Want to ventilate. That concerns the rôle of the RUC. We heard from the Chief Constable some months ago that the RUC would be assuming a rôle of primacy in the Province. I understand that a directive is at present with commanders of the RUC spelling out this new policy in clear detail. I should very much like the Secretary of State to tell us, in clear unambiguous terms, what the primacy of the police involves. It seems that there is the risk of a slight contradiction, at least, because whatever else the primacy of the police means, it means that they must be in the main thrust of our anti-terrorist measures.
We would, of course, like the RUC to be a civil force, as that terms is understood in this part of the United Kingdom. However, the facts of life in Northern Ireland are inescapable. The RUC must be involved in anti-terrorist measures in the Province. Therefore, does the primacy of the police mean that

the police, having been rearmed and having been given the kind of up-to-date equipment that they require, will be in the forefront of the anti-terrorist policies?
I come now to a point that I hope the Secretary of State will take on board. A few moments ago we were discussing the psychological boosts that the security forces required. One of the greatest boosts that the Secretary of State could give to the RUC at present would be to say that Lord Hunt was absolutely wrong in 1969. Indeed, I think that Lord Hunt now admits that he was wrong in 1969. If, however, that was to come from the Government tonight, it would be a great psychological boost to the RUC. The Government should state that this House was wrong in disarming the RUC in 1969 and wrong in trying to impose a mere civil rôle then.
If the Government say that, they must give a very clear directive to the security forces. They must say to them "While you have a civil policing rôle, somehow you must be directly involved, and when you offer yourselves for service in this constabulary, you should understand that you will be the major part of our antiterrorist thrust."
I agree that morale is, perhaps, slightly higher now than it was some months ago. However, there is still a grave concern and a degree of confusion, and this must be removed if the RUC is to play the kind of rôle that we know it can play. I make no apology for saying that this might mean resurrecting a special force. I hope that that is what the Government mean.
When we had a special force, particularly in the outer regions of the Province, those men were singularly suited to interpret the actions of those who they knew were involved in terrorist activities and were able to circumvent them in a way which saved the Province from the horrendous suffering to which we are now exposed. If we want to keep a dual rôle, if we are to say that the RUC must still assume a civil rôle, as I hope, we must also be logically consistent and say that there must be part of this force whose sole task it is to counter terrrorism and destroy terrorists.
Much play is made of the word "information". It is argued that we are now receiving more information about


terrorism than ever before from areas which were hitherto opposed to the RUC. That may be true, and if it is we are grateful. But information is not enough. There must be co-operation. Seriously, and without nit-picking, I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whether he would not induce his party overtly to support the RUC, and I ask the peace leaders to come out unequivocally in support of the RUC. If they declare themselves to be pacifists, so be it. I disagree with them fundamentally, but if they care for Northern Ireland, if they recognise the real problem there, let them, too, come out with reluctant politicians in support of the RUC.
I move on quickly to the rôle of the Ulster Defence Regiment. This matter was fully covered by my right hon. Friend, so I shall not detain the House on it, except to say that whilst I unhesitatingly accept the Secretary of State's statement, and whilst I have no doubt about his integrity, the UDR itself believes that there are political restraints on its operations in the Province. Therefore, I suggest that the Government have a great public relations exercise to do within that force if they are to remove the suspicions—indeed, they are more than suspicions—that there may well be actual members of the force who are assuming a political rôle without the knowledge or consent of the Northern Ireland Office and are keeping the UDR out of so-called sensitive areas. We need to have every committed man in Northern Ireland going into the areas where terrorists are known to operate, where they are known to plan their bestial policies. Therefore, I earnestly plead with the Minister to do everything possible to remove the suspicions or, if they exist, to remove the restraints.
My third point concerns communication in times of crisis. Again, I refer to the urban situation, to the Belfast situation. There are times when terrorists strike at a bus station or a railway station and no attempt is made to make the public aware that such a target has received the IRA's attention. I do not know whether hon. Members representing constituencies on this side of the Irish Sea are aware of the confusion that even a bomb hoax causes in the centre of the

city. It would surely not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Northern Ireland Office to second civil servants to establish a temporary centre so that people who have to get from their businesses to the outlying reaches of the Province may at least have somewhere to discover where and when to catch a bus. I have seen people having to mill around for a whole day, not knowing where to go or what to do because of a simple bomb hoax. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to the possibility of establishing better communication in times of crisis.
My final point is about the apparent double standards in the application of the law in Northern Ireland. I have a copy of the Belfast Telegraph in which there is a report headed
12 men are fined under an 1851 Act".
The report was about 12 men in the Dunmurry area in my constituency who, in trying to draw attention to the plight of their colleagues in the Maze Prison, obstructed traffic for a short time. I do not condone that action, but nor can I condone the fact that the men were brought before the court when every week on the Falls Road there is the same kind of action and no one is charged. I live at the very top of the Falls Road in the Andersonstown area, and I assert my right to travel down the road to the centre of the town. On numerous occasions there have been all kinds of demonstrations without charges being brought.
The police are finding it very difficult to keep the confidence and support of people in the law-abiding areas, particularly when this kind of thing is well known. Double standards in the application of the law will have to cease forthwith, or the Minister will make the RUC's job and our job impossible. Neither we nor the RUC have any wish to find ourselves in that kind of situation.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I intervene to reply to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for whom I have the greatest respect. Those of us who have followed his speeches in the House on the subject of Northern Ireland know the depth of the sincerity of his feeling. It was my good fortune to be a member of the party to which the hon. Gentleman


referred which went to Dublin last year. But when the hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to embark upon a new policy of talking, of negotiating, of sitting round the table—which, I repeat, he does from the highest motives and with the deepest sincerity—he is unwittingly and contrary to his own deeply held convictions and purposes giving precisely that comfort to the enemy which I know he would be the last person ever to want to give.
There is, sadly, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, no alternative to fighting this way—for war it is—until it is carried through to victory. This terrorism, this war, in Northern Ireland, is not a war of the choosing of the United Kingdom Government.
The war is being waged by terrorists who have a political objective. The objective, at least, could be regarded as perfectly legitimate and honourable. There are people in Ulster whose purpose is to sever Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and to incorporate it in the Republic. There are even people who would like to set up an independent Northern Ireland. That, at least, is a purpose that we can understand. Anybody who wishes to achieve that purpose is entitled to stand freely at elections and to advocate either union with the Republic or independence for Northern Ireland. What is in no sense permissible is that, having failed to achieve that objective through the ballot box, people should then resort to the bullet and the bomb.
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he said that what was crucial to the victory over terrorism was a conviction by the terrorists themselves that they will never achieve through violence that which they have failed to achieve through the ballot box. I fear the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough who said "Let's talk, let's sit round the table and see whether we can reconcile the point of view of those who wish to incorporate Northern Ireland into the Republic or to create an independent Ireland". I do not want to use a provocative word, but perhaps what is wanted is a Marxist State. There is an unbridgeable gulf between those who have that objective and those who, like me, are Unionists and who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank him for his kindly words about what I feel. But he is overstepping the mark in saying that the struggle in Northern Ireland broke out on the basis of people wanting to unite with the Republic. That would be a simplistic way of judging the commencement of the struggle. It is far more subtle, profound, deep, and difficult to grapple with than that simplistic point.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Hillsborough and I are not in agreement about this as, indeed, we are not in agreement on other matters. But in so far as it is possible to detect a political objective in those who are engaged in cruel and callous violence on a massive scale in Northern Ireland, that objective is a wish to incorporate Northern Ireland into the Republic. One is going back into history in talking about that.
It is the activities, however sincere, of the hon. Member for Hillsborough and of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), who says that we must withdraw the troops from Northern Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman's call for an end to the Government's policies and for new discussions with the men of violence sitting round the table—a policy specifically repudiated by the Secretary of State in his speech today—that give encouragement to the terrorists in Northern Ireland.
That is why I was glad to hear the Secretary of State tell the House in the clearest terms that the Government will continue with their battle and struggle against terrorism, and that they will continue to make it clear to the terrorists that there will be no negotiations with them and no possibility of political talks until violence has been repudiated as a means of obtaining political objectives.
I welcome the debate. The Secretary of State and hon. Members who are supporting the motion are doing the House and the country a service. I hope that the message will go forth from the House that although there are those on the Labour side of the House—but not, I think, on this side—who believe that the withdrawal of troops or the opening of negotiations would be helpful, the overwhelming view of the majority of the House is that the Government are to


be supported in that vigorous policy against terrorism to which the Secretary of State referred.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: I should like to associate my remarks with those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) in paying tribute to the security forces in Northern Ireland and the tremendous work that they are carrying out under difficult circumstances. I recalled, while listening to the debate, that when an 18-year-old soldier was shot in the Old Park Road five weeks ago, his companions carried on doing their duty in the most polite and courteous manner, almost as though nothing had happened. That is the sort of action that should be noted by the House and for which much credit should be given to the security forces, who are carrying out a difficult task in Northern Ireland.
I was impressed by the speech of the Secretary of State and his assurance that there would be no withdrawal of troops until the battle against terrorism has been won. That was a message of hope for the people of Northern Ireland, because as recently as 17th December the Secretary of State said that the GOC intended to slim down his forces by 500 men.
That statement caused great fear throughout Northern Ireland. Murders are still taking place daily and people are being forced out of business day after day. There is an average of two murders every week in my constituency and it is understandable that there should be concern when we hear statements such as that by the GOC.
There are 600 soldiers responsible for a very large area, with 15 interlacing areas, in my constituency, which stretches from the Glencairn estate to the Shore Road and to the Bawnmore estate. There are 90,000 people in this area, with only 600 soldiers backing up the police, the limited UDR presence, and a few reserve policemen. That is not enough to combat terrorism and to bring to court the people involved in sectarian violence. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the need to increase the number of soldiers in North Belfast. The 600 men have to eat and sleep, and that number

includes many working in intelligence, running operations rooms, working in the cookhouse, and so on. Hon. Members can guess how few soldiers are active on the ground in support of the police scattered over a wide area and in hostile parts of my constituency.
Other events add to the fear of people in Northern Ireland that there will be a withdrawal of troops. Last night the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew my attention to an article in the Belfast Telegraph, in which a member of his party is reported as saying that he had received an assurance from two highly-placed officials in the Northern Ireland Office that there would be a withdrawal of troops. Even British subjects—people who call themselves loyalists—are advocating the withdrawal of troops.
The Secretary of State cannot emphasise too much or give assurances too often that there will be no withdrawal of the British Army from Northern Ireland. A senior police officer told me that I could be assured that there would not be a soldier left on the streets of Northern Ireland by the end of 1977.
Some of my constituents and others with whom I have had contact tell me that one need only look around to see that the British Government are cutting down on defence, including the labour force, and are selling off properties belonging to the Northern Ireland Office in South Belfast and the North Down area. I have even been informed that the Army tour of duty, now four months in length, is being cut to three months. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these questions.
One can understand the fears of the people of Northern Ireland when they listen to the politicians and when they see certain things happening, and also hear, from other sources, that there is to be an Army withdrawal. It is up to those of us who represent them in this House to impress upon the Government that they must give a categorical assurance that there will be no withdrawal, that the Army will stay in Northern Ireland until the terrorists and others who are embarked on a course of destruction are defeated, normality is restored, and the rule of law is handed over to the RUC, which is equipped to carry out the job.
We were told by the Secretary of State on 17th December that there was to be an increase of 200 full-time members of the UDR. That increase has not yet been implemented. I am informed by a close source that the pay structure has not yet been decided. I ask the Minister to tell us when it will be decided and when these 200 extra full-time members of the UDR will take up their jobs. But recruiting 200 extra full-time members of the UDR is merely to touch the tip of the iceberg. I have advocated—I make no apology for it—that 200 is not sufficient. We need a full-time company in each battalion to go to the support of the RUC in its policing job.
I want to touch briefly on the proper deployment of the UDR. There has been an improvement in the situation but there is still a feeling of frustration and of anger amongst its members that they are not being allowed to carry out the job for which they were recruited. On 4th February, I asked about the number of applicants to join the regiment in 1976. I understand that £63,000 was spent on Press and television advertising for recruitment to the regiment. Those advertisements were impressive, but I believe that if men of the UDR were involved in the duties advertised we would get many more recruits. Out of 3,092 applicants last year, about half were received into the UDR.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke about recruitment and those who have been received into the regiment, and I shall not take up time repeating what he said, but we should ask why, after so much expenditure has been involved, only half that number has been accepted into the UDR.
In my own constituency there are limited areas in which the UDR can patrol. In the past we have encouraged, and tonight I would appeal to, members of the minority to join the UDR and play their full part as members of Her Majesty's forces in protecting Northern Ireland against the terrorists who are out to destroy it.
In 1940 43,000 people in Northern Ireland—a large number—were involved in security. In 1977, if we include members of the UDR, the RUC and the RUC Reserve, the grand total is only 16,000. With the scale of IRA and other

terrorist activity in Northern Ireland that number is insufficient to combat, pursue and bring the terrorists to justice in the way that I am sure the Government would like to see it done and the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Belfast, West have advocated. The terrorists should be brought to justice and dealt with in the courts, in the proper way.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Concannon): The hon. Gentleman should add the 14,000 British troops to his total of 16,000.

Mr. Carson: I accept what the Minister says, and I appreciate his intervention, but I was referring to the number of people from Northern Ireland who were involved in security, and I was trying to relate that to the number involved in 1940.
As some of my hon. Friends are keen to take part in this debate I shall be brief. Although my hon. Friend thet Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has not tugged my coat he has looked at his watch.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but in some areas of Northern Ireland the RUC Reserve is at full strength. I have said before in this House that the RUC Reserve is a grand force, but it has been deployed in the wrong way. We have an example in Bangor. I have been told by an authority that in Bangor there is very little for the reserve to do. It is a very peaceful area and there is not the sectarian violence which I and some of my hon. Friends experience in our constituencies.
I should like the Minister to consider whether the Chief Constable should be given the power to take reserve policemen from the Bangor area and put them into North Queen's Street police station or Tennant Street police station and assist the RUC and the reserve police, who are very much under strength in those troubled areas.
I understand that the reserve police can choose exactly on which night they want to do their duty. It is essential that the Chief Constable should have the power to delegate reserve members of the police force and to call upon the services of the


RUC Reserve at the weekend, when there is often violence on a large scale.
I have had approaches from members of the RUC who have applied to join the special patrol groups. They have appeared before a board and have been accepted. Yet, after six months, they have not been taken into the SPGs. I understand that these people cannot be taken into the special patrol groups immediately because divisional commanders in certain areas cannot afford to lose such men.
I suggest that this is where the reserve police can play a great rôle. Full-time reserve men could easily take the places of policemen who are well trained and experienced, and who would be very welcome within the SPGs.
A great deal of publicity was given to the police receiving the Ml carbine. At the weekend pictures appeared in the Press showing that the IRA could produce a better weapon than the M1 carbine. I believe that an order went out from the Army authorities to get those effective weapons which are now in the hands of the IRA. That was to counteract the statement made by the Chief Constable that the police would be receiving the M1 carbine.
Now, many weeks after that Press announcement, the police still have not received the M1 carbine, or, indeed, the reinforced arming kits which have been ordered for the Land Rovers. I understand that they are now trying to get an arming kit for Land Rovers with a different type of roof. If a bullet went through the roof of a Land Rover it would pierce that type of equipment and mean certain death to those inside.
I understand that the police strongly reject the type of equipment that is being forced on the RUC. I do not know whose fault it is. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. Is it the fault of the Chief Constable or the Police Authority? I have been in close contact with the Police Authority recently. I do not think that the Police Authority has been as effective or efficient as it should be. Perhaps the Chairman of the Police Authority is involved in too many committees and does not have ample time to give to the almost full-time job of looking after the welfare and interests of the RUC, which is carrying out an extremely difficult job.
I think that it has now come home to us in this House that we must support the security forces in Northern Ireland. I have touched briefly on many vital points essential to the police, the reserve police, the UDR, and the well-being and future of Northern Ireland. I think that we all agree that there is no way out until terrorism in Northern Ireland is crushed. We are determined—I hope that the Government and the House are equally determined—to see the job through in the not-too-distant future.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson), but I am in fullhearted support of some of the sentiments that he has expressed, especially his remarks about the lack of protection that seems to be afforded to his constituency. We must bear in mind that it is a vast area, geographically. We must also bear in mind the strength of the security forces that can be seen on the streets. I live in the North Belfast area, and it is a fact that quite a number of the most atrocious murders have taken place there, as it hinges on West Belfast. No steps seem to have been taken to prevent such murders. I find myself in agreement with the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed.
As one would expect, the motion has been brought about by those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I am in fullhearted agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), when he says that their approach is the wrong one. The demand contained in the motion is for an increase in police strength, an in-increase in the strength of the Army, an increase in the strength of the security forces, better recruitment, and better arms. Such demands are not the answer to the problem of Northern Ireland.
I have repeatedly stated, in conjunction with my hon. Friends, that political decisions must be taken before we can expect peace to come about in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said that there must be more democracy in Northern Ireland and that if we have an increased democratic concept we shall have less need for battalions of soldiers. That is quite right.
I give one example, of which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) will be well aware. The Government, with the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition, thought it was right last year to put on the statute bok the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act. The Act was designed to do away with discrimination on religious grounds in the seeking of employment in Northern Ireland. One would think that no one could take any objection to such an Act, yet it was bitterly opposed and contested by those who represent the Unionist view in Northern Ireland.
Many local authorities—they are not under the control of the party of the hon. Member for Abingdon—have torn up the Act—a measure that had the full support of the Government and Opposition. They have torn it up and have said that they will not implement it. Such actions are not designed to bring about confidence within the minority community in Northern Ireland.
I know that it is expected of hon. Members in this place to say that they give their wholehearted approval to every action of the security forces. It is expected that we shall support everything that they do. That is the implication of our approval. However, it must be admitted that the Army in Northern Ireland has made mistakes. It is as well to face the fact that the Army is not infallible. It has made mistakes, and its mistakes should be brought to the notice of the House. For example, some time ago a regiment that is known as the Black Watch came into my constituency. Given the history of Scotland and the history of the regiment, it was not the best type of regiment to enter a minority area.
A number of soldiers were continually arresting and harassing innocent people on the streets. They planted fake evidence, so that the people concerned would have to serve sentences of imprisonment. However, those soldiers made one fatal mistake. They arrested one young lad and in the course of harassing him and beating him, they planted bullets on him. They brought that lad to the police station and said "We have arrested this terrorist, and he had bullets on him".

Mr. Powell: What is the point of all this?

Mr. Fitt: The House will hear in a moment. What they did not know was that young man was the nephew of a prominent member of the RUC and that the lad could in no way have been a terrorist. As a result of dealing with that case, the then Chief Constable of the RUC, James Flanagan, began to have doubts about the truthfulness of reports that came to him from that regiment. He ordered an investigation by the RUC, and the constabulary followed the regiment when it left Belfast to go to Germany and elsewhere. As a result of those inquiries, a fortnight ago five members of the Black Watch were brought before the court in Northern Ireland and were found guilty of planting evidence on innocent civilians and of causing them to serve terms of imprisonment. Those soldiers were convicted and sentenced for carrying out crimes in Northern Ireland.
Where are those men to serve their sentences? I was told in a recent parliamentary answer that they are to serve them in Scotland. I have never been a supporter of the IRA's demand that those who have committed offences in England should be transferred to Ireland. I have never once lent my support to that objective. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If members of the British armed forces in Northern Ireland are sentenced by courts in Northern Ireland, they should serve their time there.
Two of the five soldiers involved in that matter were also involved in the controversial killing of one of my constituents, a man named Leo Norney. Many eye-witnesses to that tragedy said that that young lad was not carrying weapons and was not a terrorist. Two of the Black Watch soldiers subsequently convicted by the courts of planting fake evidence were the men responsible for that killing. I believe that enough doubts have been raised over the case of those members of the Black Watch to cause the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to reopen the whole case of the killing of Leo Norney.
Another matter is causing great annoyance in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Powell: Since the hon. Gentleman is now leaving that point, will he make


clear whether he would fail to support the Metropolitan Police because members of that force had been rightly convicted of a crime? Why should he withhold his support from the RUC because members of the RUC have been similarly convicted, or from the Army because members of the Army have been similarly convicted?

Mr. Fitt: I have not said that I would withhold any support from the security forces in Northern Ireland. I am saying that where members of the security forces are found to have exceeded their duties and have caused people to be placed in prison, those matters should be made known to the House.
Let me refer to the murders referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. Some of the most heinous murders that have taken place since the present troubles began have occurred in the North Belfast area. Victims have been found in brutal circumstances with their throats cut. Those murders cannot be too hotly condemned. Yet on the occasion of one recent murder—and every weekend I have to go to the funerals of constituents who have been murdered—the RUC put out a statement advising people not to use a part of central Belfast, North Street, up to the Antrim Road and Cliftonville Road, at night for fear of assassination.
That is a condemnation of the RUC. Members of the RUC should be seen in greater numbers in the inner Belfast area. It obviously has enough men to do that. I am not an expert on security, but I suggest that armed RUC men and women should patrol that area at night to protect innocent people. There is a possibility that the assassination squads will try to get armed policemen and women, but only by taking extreme measures such as that can we hope to get our hands on the murderous gang that has been operating for so long.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Belfast, North said about the Army. There are many rumours emanating from the loyalists and from the military organisations and others. Rumours are circulating that the British Army is about to be withdrawn from Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to tell us once and

for all whether there is any truth in that rumour.
I ask my hon. Friend to be careful about his answer to my next point. Some of the incident centres that were in operation officially up to a year ago are still operating. Some telephone bills and rents are being paid by the Government to keep the centres in existence. I am think of one in particular in North Belfast. If my information is correct, the Minister should be candid with the House and tell us why the Northern Ireland Office is still keeping these so-called incident centres open.

Mr. Carson: Is the hon. Member aware that in January 1975 the then Secretary of State gave permission for the licensing of Army-style 9 mm pistols to be used in incident centres?

Mr. Fitt: A great deal of concern was expressed in the House about that at the time. I was the first to mention it, and it was referred to by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That could not have helped to solve the security situation in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the search procedures that the Army carries out on civilians. I know how difficult it is for an army to try to stop the carrying of arms by civilians, particularly females. The law is that a soldier may ask a female to open her coat on the ground that she might be carrying an Armalite rifle or a similar weapon. However, it can be very embarrassing for a young girl to be surrounded by a number of soldiers and to be asked to open her coat. That has happened on many occasions, and remarks are sometimes passed by soldiers. They are not all angels. When a patrol is engaged in searching females it should be accompanied by a female member of the security forces.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made the bold statement that only those countries with the fullest democracy have no fighting in their midst. On that basis the only country that is democratic is Russia and perhaps others that are totalitarian and dictatorially suppress the population. Northern Ireland is not such a country. The hon. Member for Belfast,


West believes that democracy in Northern Ireland should accord a special, privileged position to the SDLP. That cannot be done, and even if it were done the IRA violence would not end.
It is not because of any statement by the hon. Member that I feel sad about this debate. Who would believe, from the attendance in this Chamber, from the placid even complacent atmosphere —something I deeply resent—that Northern Ireland is in its eighth year of agony? Who would believe, from the tenor of some of the speeches, that there are some areas in Northern Ireland which, as we talk, as darkness has fallen, themselves fall under the dominion of the Provisional IRA? These are areas where old people are afraid to move out of their homes, where young people are intimidated into acts of terrorism, where life is brought to a halt and people's lives constantly endangered.
Whenever a foul terrorist act occurs in England there is a hue and cry in this House and throughout the country. This does not happen when the same thing occurs in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this debate on security will have any meaningful effect. It may have some effect on people in Northern Ireland who may feel that this debate is achieving something. But it is like giving an aspirin to a person dying of cancer. We hear hard and tough speeches, as if the Government were being rocked on their feet. The only way they will be rocked is if they are harassed, and harassed until they do something for the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland. The Government can be harassed only in the Division Lobby— [Interruption.] I hear the cackle of hens behind me, roused by a fox. The truth is that, except on devolution, those hon. Members will not harass the Government.
Consider the motion that has been tabled. This motion reads:
That this House takes note of the unabated continuance of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland".
"Takes note"! This motion should condemn the Government for allowing the people to suffer. This is not a proper motion to table, because it is deceiving the people of Northern Ireland who believe that the fight for the Province is being conducted on the Floor of the House. It is not being conducted here.

The rough speeches are made in Northern Ireland. The people are stirred up there. But the fervour should be in this Chamber because this is where the people's representatives are. The only way to act is through the Division Lobby.
I presume, because of the wording of the motion, that there is a pact between the movers and the Government to the effect that there will be no Division. If the motion had been worded in such a way as to attack the Government they would have had to respond and refuse to accept the motion. The Government can accept this motion. It is a sad situation, because the only constitutional way that the people of Northern Ireland have of expressing their anger is through their elected representatives voting in the Division Lobby.
The Government should have been indicted for failing fully to protect the citizens of our part of the United Kingdom. The motion should have demanded, not meekly call for, the measures that we require to end the campaign of terror which has crucified Ulster for eight years. The Secretary of State has published placards in Northern Ireland and advertisements in the newspapers and on television saying".
Seven years is long enough.
That is apparently not so. We are now in our eighth year. Shall we still have advertisements in the ninth year? Shall we still have them in the 14th year? I believe that we may have. I go along with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) who said that we may well be debating this subject in 10 years' time. This is because the violence goes on steadily and nothing effective is done about it.
I propose, as I have said often enough before, that the battle should be brought to the Floor of the House. That is what we are here for. It must be done now because the people of Northern Ireland have had enough. With 1,700 dead and 17,000 permanently injured we have had enough of violence in Northern Ireland, from whatever group it comes. Whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, the people of Northern Ireland are subjects of the Queen and citizens of the United Kingdom and they are entitled to protection, no matter in which part of Northern Ireland they may live.
How many more are to be injured or butchered by the Provisional IRA before the Government force their authority properly on the Province? How many more years will elapse? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies. The bloody and savage destruction waged by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland is a complete vindication of the Ulster Unionist position which is that we can never surrender one iota to their campaign and conspiracy. Until the Provisional IRA is completely eliminated from Ulster, no law-abiding citizen can travel the country in safety and no one can feel secure in his own home or at his place of work.
There is a number of measures that the Secretary of State should take, but I have only about one minute left in which to put them. First, the notion was bruited abroad years ago, when General Freeland and the Army were brought into Northern Ireland, that the Army was there to assist the civil authority. In my judgment the Chief Constable, under the Secretary of State, should be made responsible for the direction of security, and the Army should be there to assist the Chief Constable at his request. That is what I demand—the Ulsterisation of the security of the Province.
Secondly, I demand that more Army personnel should be brought to Northern Ireland. At one stage we had 20,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland, but now the number has been reduced to about 14,000, although the violence is unabated. It is argued that having a large number of soldiers will not necessarily bring the violence to an end, but if there were 20,000 or 25,000 soldiers in the Province, how much easier would it be to stop cars, carrying travelling gunmen, explosives, rifles and ammunition? How much easier would it be to protect people along the border as well as in Belfast? It would have a psychological impact on the Provisional IRA, which would realise that the Government at last mean business.
Also, since we hear so much from politicians, I seriously suggest that the law should be changed to allow Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to join the UDR or the Police Reserve, because we so often hear them castigating people in Northern Ireland for not coming forward. Let them join, because they would

be as much use—or even more use—parading up and down the afflicted parts of the Province as sitting in the House exchanging compliments with Ministers.
The point is always made that the soldiers are needed for NATO, but Northern Ireland is on the flank of NATO and we need the soldiers there to protect that part of Western Europe. I fear that these words will not be listened to by the Government, who are glad to have this debate as a platform for putting forward statistics of successes in capturing criminals and explosives. But, apart from that, it will have no other effect on the people of Northern Ireland, and I would not wish anyone to believe that it will have any other effect. The only statistics that the people of Ulster will accept from the Government are the statistics showing the number of dead and injured in Northern Ireland. When that number goes down dramatically they will realise that something has been done at long last to protect them as citizens of the United Kingdom.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: There are many things that could be said in a debate such as this, but unfortunately we must restrict ourselves to the more important aspects of the security situation in Northern Ireland.
Reference has already been made to the photographs of the IRA showing off a heavy machine gun, which photographs were published in the newspapers about a week ago. I believe that that was a purely propaganda exercise, for unless the IRA intends to expand its warfare in Northern Ireland it has no need of such a weapon. The Armalite rifle and the other weapons that it already possesses provide sufficient fire power for the task that the IRA has set itself.
One thing that is clear throughout all the horror of Northern Ireland over the past few years is that efforts to buy off terror and terrorists cannot and will never pay. The clearest proof of this appears in the endless obituary columns in the newspapers of Northern Ireland. That which cannot be bought off must be beaten off.
I view with the gravest suspicion the demands in some Ulster newspapers and some Irish newspapers, from people like


Mr. McAteer and Mr. McBride, that the IRA should be put down at the conference table. I believe that the IRA can be beaten off only by depriving it of any hope of victory. There should be no talks with it and no recognition, under any circumstances. The incident centres that have been referred to should be closed down immediately. The Minister who is to reply to the debate must tell us why they are still operating and what they are costing the country.
We must demonstrate the will to win in Northern Ireland, up to now, in this House and in the Province, we have been far too concerned about the public image of the Army and of the security forces there. We have been taken to the Strasbourg Court by the Dublin Government, who face a nelection this year. A large patr of that action was possibly electioneering. It seems that that same Government forget about the activities of their own heavy squad in their own police force. I ask the Government here to bear in mind that while we have been nice to the IRA it has been anything but nice to us. While the Government have shown decency towards the IRA in Northern Ireland our people have been getting buried every day of the week.
There are no nice wars, and, particularly, there are no nice guerrilla wars. People get hurt in wars. They get hurt in losing them, they get hurt in a holding operation, and they get hurt in winning them. The terrorists can be stopped only by being killed, and until the day comes when we kill the hard core of terrorists in Northern Ireland our problems will remain.
The terrorists do not need a lot of guns or explosives; they simply need propaganda, and they naturally get it because, unfortunately, underdogs are always popular in the world's Press. Especially, they need a certain amount of support on the ground. That support will always be forthcoming when the terrorist seems to be winning. He will seem to be winning until the Government show that they will win.
We cannot buy people's hearts; we can only convince people that a majority has the right to peace and decency, and the right to rule. We cannot convince those who are naturally opposed to us that the will is there unless they see actual proof

of that will. That will must be accepted through the ballot box. If by our actions, we show that we really mean to win in Northern Ireland, victory is certain. If we do not show that will, no victory can be achieved.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In your unavoidable absence, Mr. Speaker, it became clear that some hon. Members were under a misunderstanding about the nature of this debate. They seemed to have failed to notice that it was a debate on security on a motion about security and they expressed regret that we were not discussing political solutions. I hasten to remind them that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Bench have taken an entirely different view. We have made absolutely sure that hon. Members have unlimited opportunities for discussions on political solutions beginning, with your permission Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will regret that their bedfellow of last night, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), has deserted them and that he entirely disagrees with the line he took last night in supporting the Government. I have no doubt that there is relevance to Northern Ireland in the debates that will engage our attention in the weeks to come. If hon. Members have any doubts about that they should read our reasoned amendment tabled on Second Reading and the humble contribution that I made on Second Reading. They will find constructive suggestions there about the future of Northern Ireland, but I drew the line at the inclusion of the gunmen representing the IRA, or any other gunmen representing anyone else.
Last June pleas were made for the establishment of a full-time operational detachment of the Ulster Defence Regiment in each battalion. It has been decided that the UDR should play a more important rôle in supporting the RUC and it makes sense to press ahead with the formulation of full-time units. They would provide the most efficient and economical method of providing a 24hour UDR presence. Such round-the-clock availability would make possible much closer co-operation with the RUC.
It might be argued that it is possible to call up whole battalions for full-time service at any time of special need. But the difficulty is apparent to those of us with some experience of the situation. The problem arises when we have an influx of troops and reinforcements in great numbers superimposed on an organisation that is not geared to and not capable of providing logistic support. There would be difficulties presented in this case if such call-ups were prolonged because we would be overloading the administrative transport and communications structures which are not designed to cope with a full complement of battalions of the UDR at any one time.
It is doubtful, too, if the practice of fairly frequent call-ups to full-time duty could be sustained without causing very real hardship to members of the UDR. In many cases in the past some have suffered severe financial loss and it would be unreasonable to add to their burden.
Last July the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland promised that the UDR would be strengthened but he did not go into any details and we did not press him at the time. There appears to have been some disappointment about the falling off in numbers from the peak period of early 1972 when the numbers reached 9,100. There now appears to have been a drop of almost 1,500. It looks as if even the present level is being maintained only through recruitment of women.
There are two or three outstanding reasons for these disappointing figures. The first is the delay in processing applications. We are still not satisfied, although we have drawn attention to this matter many times, that they are being dealt with as speedily as possible.
I have been told by the Ministry of Defence that a considerable number of applications have been withdrawn. I do not believe that these people have changed their minds after signing the application form. I think that they simply become fed up with the long waiting period between offering their services and receiving notification of acceptance. They are also frequently discouraged by inexplicable rejections of many of their friends. It is particularly difficult to understand why someone is refused who

has served with distinction with one of the fighting Services and could be regarded as excellent UDR material.
Another cause of the poor recruitment is the lack of convincing evidence that the UDR is being used effectively for the purpose for which it was designed. Potential recruits totally fail to understand, for example, why, when a joint military-UDR patrol arrives at the boundary of a certain area, it is required to shed its UDR content, which is then transported to a pick-up point to be reunited with its military colleagues. I find that difficult to justify, and the general public totally fail to understand it.
I recognise the work of many senior officers in the UDR, but there is a weakness in the fact that there are few officers at the top who have served at battalion level in the UDR or have ever taken part in operations of the regiment. More urgency is needed in the provision of operational equipment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the problem of obsolete wireless sets, the unsatisfactory level of maintenance and the difficulty of acquiring spares. The Secretary of State tonight repeated his promise that new and more sophisticated equipment will become available, but we should like some assurance that his full weight and that of his Ministers will be placed behind UDR procurement officers to ensure that there is no avoidable delay.
It is generally felt also that too little has been done to improve co-ordination between the UDR and the RUC in preparing for the reduced internal security role of the Regular Army. Despite what the Secretary of State said about difficulties in training schemes involving two separate forces, I would ask him to see whether it might not be possible to encourage officers and NCOs of the UDR and the RUC to engage in limited exercises and training sessions. The time will certainly come when that kind of contact and experience of working together will prove not just valuable but absolutely essential.
I want to make another small suggestion. Surely there is a need for an RUC liaison officer to be placed perhaps not at battalion level, but certainly at the headquarters of the UDR. It would not be too much to ask that a senior serving or


a retired RUC officer could be found a place on the RUC Advisory Council. These things may seem small, but I am sure that they will lead to an improvement in the atmosphere, in the relationship and in the co-operation between these two forces. It is not only desirable but will become strictly essential.
We welcome the announcement on 17th December approving the enrolment of 200 additional conrate soldiers for the UDR. But we must point out that this cannot be regarded as being anything like an adequate substitute for the 600 regular troops whose withdrawal from Northern Ireland was announced at the same time, when one takes into account that the full-time recruits to the UDR will presumably not be available for some time. I imagine that many of them are still getting through the tortuous screening process and following that they will have to be trained.
Furthermore, the withdrawal of the troops not merely reduces patrolling by the Army but it also, in many ways, weakens the capacity of the UDR to do its patrolling. The UDR find that it now unfortunately has to waste time doing guard duty on premises which were formerly occupied by the Army. Surely that is a great waste of resources and manpower.
A further withdrawal of regular troops should not be contemplated unless there has been a matching increase in the strength of the locally recruited forces, or there are real indications that there is likely to be a dramatic reduction in the level of terrorist activity.
We have all welcomed the forthright declaration by the new Chief Constable of the RUC to the effect that the overriding objective of the force would be the defeat of the Provisional IRA and that this would take priority over all other aspects of police work and would be allocated whatever personnel, equipment or weapons were required.
I am also pleased to note that there has been some improvement in the supply situation. I hope that that will continue and that there will be a further improvement. I shall suggest a small step which could accelerate that improvement. I understand that in Great Britain a chief constable is given a budget within which he has comparative freedom to work in the matter of contracts and supplies. In

Northern Ireland, however, the Chief Constable has to seek the approval of the Police Authority before he can make such purchases. That procedure might be admirable in the purchase of boots, for example, but it is not appropriate and not ideal when it comes to negotiating for supply and, what is probably more important, the design of anti-terrorist weapons, when some makes may still be on the classified list. We ought to try to devise a less cumbersome method to enable the Chief Constable to obtain speedily whatever is essential to counter the rapidly changing terrorist tactics. That degree of flexibility is necessary. He must not have his hands tied. He must not have to appear before the Police Authority to justify expenditure on items which are urgently needed and which may, and very probably would, save lives.
I shall not ask for precise details of the number and strength of the special patrol groups of the RUC. I hope that in both respects they are adequate. However, if they are not adequate, or if, for example, they are not as well equipped as their opposite numbers in the Metropoltian Police in London, I hope that that deficiency will be remedied speedily. If they are under strength, I hope that there will be a removal of the apparent ban on the inclusion of mobilised reserve constables, because this would avoid the draining away of the regular police from many of the undermanned RUC stations.
There has been a great desire on the part of a vast number of citizens to play a legitimate part in the defence and security of their own localities, but one feels that still more opportunities could be provided by way of acceptance of applicants into the RUC Reserve. I make a very special plea, through the Minister and others who may be listening, to the Police Federation of Northern Ireland to modify its attitude towards the reservists. I accept that all of us are entitled to look after our own special interests, but I plead with the Police Federation to remember that many people have to make very real sacrifices of personal interests in the present state of emergency. I do not think that the Police Federation, on reflection—and particularly the men they represent—having considered the implications, would be inclined to resist this simple request.
My colleagues and I supported the decision taken by the present Secretary of State when he was Secretary of State for Defence, and by his right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, to involve the Special Air Service in the ugly situation existing at that time in South Armagh. I have always felt that there is a place for a force of this nature in a terrorist situation, and I have no doubt that its presence, and the fear of its presence, made a very significant contribution to stablising the situation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—not, as many of us have come to call him, the hon. Member for South Armagh. That was a tribute to the effectiveness of those of his constituents who lived in the firing line of the southern part of his constituency.
However, while I am reluctant to trespass on the territory of a colleague, I suggest to the Secretary of State that the SAS might perhaps be encouraged and permitted to widen its sphere of activity. Should the Secretary of State ask me to nominate an area for its attention, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will not mind if I say that the southern part of Londonderry, which is also within the jurisdiction of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), in constituency terms, would be a suitable area in which the stabilising force of the SAS would be very beneficial.
I come now to the question of deterrents. I recognise that all parties in the House are divided on the issue of capital punishment. Our party is no exception. While I have consistently voted in favour of capital punishment, others have equally consistently and sincerely opposed it. However, on whatever side we may find ourselves, I suggest that there is an obligation on all of us to ensure that punishment is made to bear at least some relationship to the crime. Terrorism is a crime. The terrorists themselves have to be convinced of that, and those engaged in the enforcement of the law must be clear in their minds that they are dealing with criminals of the very worst type. If it is felt that capital punishment is not defensible, the alternative must be a convincing substitute.

It must be an alternative that is as irreversible as the death penalty itself.
We cannot repeat too often what the Secretary of State said tonight, that there will be no amnesty. The idea that one day a deal will be done and that all the thugs, gunmen and murderers will again be permitted to walk openly on our streets is a false notion which gives hope to terrorists and, perhaps even more important, to would-be terrorists. The expectation and belief that they may be permitted to win sustains and motivates those enemies of society. It is the duty and responsibility of the House, of all of us who take part in these debates, to deprive them of that which inspires them to continue.
I trust that in this debate we have made progress towards that end, and I invite the House to support the motion.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In making the same invitation, I should be grateful if we could be informed what the motion means by:
calls for a further increase in the strength and effectiveness of the Ulster security forces.
Many of my hon. Friends and I would feel that our support for the motion was on the ground that we supported an increase in the strength and ability of the police force in Northern Ireland and a determination by the Government to arrive at a situation in which we had a police force acceptable to the whole community. We do not want to see merely the negative side that we have seen in the debate, which to my mind has lacked much in the spirit of reconciliation.
Although we want to deter terrorism and the men of violence, from whichever side they come, it would be helpful, in all the talk about political solutions, if we at least tried to understand the circumstances in which the violence continues. We would have welcomed a spirit of reconciliation, particularly from the Ulster Unionist Bench, where it was conspicuously lacking in the speech of the hon. Member for Down. North (Mr. Kilfedder). I suppose that this is a battlefield and the hon. Member must be the Rupert of debate, because he has disappeared.
The hon. Gentleman spoke contradictions, calling for an Ulsterisation of the security forces and then for an increase in the British Army presence. He got


catcalls from his hon. Friends for being in the Government Lobby last night. I was happy to be there with him, but I have always been a Home-Ruler. I had thought that I might see some of his hon. Friends there, because I believe that the Ulster Unionists want devolved government for Northern Ireland and that that was what the Convention Report was all about. But it seems that what they want for Northern Ireland they do not want for Scotland and Wales. However, I shall not pursue that matter too far, because I might well be in the same Lobby as them later.
We relentlessly pursue the terrorists, but there must be an understanding by all the parties concerned that we must work for reconciliation. Something that has gone almost unnoticed in the House and country is the tremendous amount of money that the Government have just allocated to rehabilitate Belfast. In many ways that will do as much to reconcile people and improve the situation there as would the provision of extra guns or the introduction of more repressive measures. The more we think in terms of jobs, homes and security for people, the more we get away from the atmosphere in which terrorists on either side can flourish. That should be the aim all the time—not to give way to the terrorists but to ensure that in all our policies for Northern Ireland we seek to create a situation in which people will not be afraid of one another but will be prepared to work and talk together and, we hope, to share government together.

9.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I hope that the House will forgive me for having left myself only 10 minutes in which to wind up the debate, but I thought it as well to enable as many hon. Members as possible to take part. I was glad that they included two of my hon. Friends, because lately I have been feeling like the boy on the burning deck, with plenty to do but wanting a bit of support from some of my colleagues. The first thing that I must do is to scotch some of the rumours that are obviously high-flying in Northern Ireland.
I do not know how often we must say this, but the Secretary of State frequently asks me how often he must say it and I tell him "At least three times a week

and every day, if possible", so I do not know how much more often we must say that the Army in Northern Ireland will stay at its present strength of about 14,000, that it will be strengthened as may be necessary at any time, and that it will continue until it has done its job. We shall go on saying that for as long as necessary. When I have meetings with various bodies in Northern Ireland and this point is brought up they are told to their faces that this is a rumour. But the Government often find later that the rumour has been used in a politically-motivated way.
I also want to scotch another rumour quickly, before it does untold damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) mentioned the incident centre in the New Lodge Road and he seemingly thought that public funds were being given to support it. The truth is that when this property became one of the Provisional Sinn Fein incident centres a telephone was needed. The Northern Ireland Office did not install the telephone. It was for the PSF to arrange that with the GPO. All subsequent financial transactions have taken place between the PSF, as a private subscriber, and the GPO in the normal way. No public money was given for that purpose. I hope that that scotches the rumour, but if it does not I shall have to say it again next week.
I also want to scotch the rumour that Northern Ireland tours of duty for the Army are to be reduced to three months. I do not know where these rumours come from. There is no truth in this and from long experience the Army has found that the four-month emergency tours are about right. There are no plans to change this, There are, of course, some units in Northern Ireland that are on 18-months' accompanied tours, but there have always been some units on such tours.
As to the pay structure for full-time members of the UDR, it is fair to say that improved terms and conditions of service for full-time UDR members are expected shortly.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that we accept the motion in the sense that he read it. It includes the police, the police reserves and all the


local forces within Northern Ireland, but it does not include the Army.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Unfortunately, the Minister himself led us astray by drawing the attention of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) to the fact that the security forces included 14,000 soldiers, I remind the Minister that the last few words of the motion are "Ulster security forces". Therefore, the concept is fairly established that when we talk about security forces we mean the police and the Army. Therefore, it is implied in the motion that an increase in the Army can also take place.

Mr. Concannon: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has followed the debate properly. The motion refers to local security forces. That is how I understand it, and from what was said by United Ulster Unionist leaders in the House, that is also the way that they understand it.
There has been some talk about the UDR and 200 full-time members. What has been forgotten is that there are already 1,600 full-time members of the UDR, and this figure of 200 is additional to that number. To those who have been referring to recruitment I can say that while there are no recent figures, I increasingly spend my Sunday mornings touring Army establishments in Northern Ireland. I recently found myself talking to the commander of the 6th UDR Battalion in Omagh. He told me that he was pleased with recruitment into his battalion. He also mentioned how much co-operation there had been in that area between his force and Army battalions that had served there. There is no particular problem in that area, and I find similar feelings on most of my Sunday morning tours.
In the debate there seemed to be some confusion about recruitment to the RUC. We should distinguish between the regular force and the reservists, both full-and part-time. Recruitment to the regular force is highly successful. Only a proportion of applicants is accepted by the Chief Constable, who has the responsibility, under statute, for the appointment of members of the force. The selection procedure includes consideration of age, height, health, character and education.
The qualifications are those that obtain in the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely no one would suggest that they should be relaxed, particularly in present circumstances in Northern Ireland. The strength of the part-time reserves has shown a slight drop in the last year, and it was to these forces that my right hon. Friend referred when he said that certain areas were up to strength. Part-time reservists serve in their home areas and are not mobile units like the regular forces. No purpose would be served by attracting more recruits than can be used productively.
There is good reason to believe that the flow of arms and funds across the Atlantic has diminshed in recent months, due, in no small part, to the United States authorities. They have arrested suspected gun runners with the help of evidence from Northern Ireland, and on 14th February a civil suit was filed by the Justice Department against Noraid to ensure that United States law in respect of the transmission of money overseas is complied with. There is no complacency about this issue on either side of the Atlantic. There is a great deal of cooperation between the authorities, but it would be wrong, in the interests of security, to go into details.
It has been suggested that the police have been denied the tools for the job. I cannot ignore the fact that the assessment of operations and the provision of appropriate arms and equipment are, by statute, matters for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority. The Chief Constable is advised, in relation to arms and other protective equipment, by a force working party that has been set up and on which the Police Federation is represented. There is an opportunity for police officers to make their views known.
I know that the police force has in hand arrangements to provide certain vehicles with improved protective features. A number of specially designed personnel carriers are being tested and new rifles have been acquired to replace other weapons. I am satisfied that adequate procedures exist for the provision of all necessary equipment.
The necessary resources are available, and the Chief Constable and the Police Authority have my full support.
There are other issues with which I should have liked to deal, including prison administration —the subject for which I am particularly responsible. I feel that I have been saying this daily for the past year, but the special category for prisoners ended on 1st March. Those in prison who are not accepting prison rules have, by their actions already lost 11 years in remission of sentences.
I hope that I have managed to convey to the House our thanks for the way in

which the debate has been conducted and the basis on which the Government ate prepared to accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the unabated continuance of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and calls for a further increase in the strength and effectiveness of the Ulster security forces.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CRIMINAL DAMAGE)

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
The Government's intention to introduce this order was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 2nd July 1976. The purpose of the order is to extend to Northern Ireland, with certain modifications necessary to take account of other Northern Ireland statutes, the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which applies to England and Wales. The 1971 Act was based on the recommendations of a report by the Law Commission, and it has worked well from the points of view of both the police and the courts.
While the order is not primarily directed against terrorism, the Chief Constable believes that it will help the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the daunting task which faces it in the present unhappy situation. The benefit to the police will result from the simplification of the law. The order also provides for greater flexibility of sentences, and creates new offences of threatening to destroy or damage property and of possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property.
The existing law relating to damage to property is contained in the Malicious Damage Act 1861, much of which is obsolete. Some of the penalties in the Act are difficult to justify. For example, while destruction of works of art under Section 9 carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment, the maximum penalty for destruction of hop-bines is 14 years.
I do not think that I need go into details of all the articles of the order, but there are one or two provisions to which I should draw attention. Article 3 creates the two main offences of the order. The first is the simple offence of destroying or damaging another's property, intending to destroy or damage it, or being reckless as to whether destruction or damage would be caused. The second

main offence is the aggravated one of destroying or damaging any property intending to endanger the life of another, or being reckless as to whether the other's life would be endangered.
This article provides that any offence of destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson. The common law offence of arson is abolished. The new statutory definition of arson has a wider and more satisfactory meaning than that at common law which is restricted to the burning of houses.
Articles 4 and 5 create the offences of threatening to destroy or damage property and of having custody or control of anything intending to use it to destroy or damage property belonging to another person.
Article 6 provides the penalties for offences under the order. For the aggravated offence under article 3 and all offences of arson the maximum is life imprisonment; and 10 years for the simple offence, where the destruction or damage is not caused by fire, and for threats under article 4 and offences of possession under article 5. The maxima where cases are tried summarily are two years' imprisonment or a fine of up to £500, or both.
Article 9 enables magistrates' courts to try, with the consent of the prosecution, all offences created by the order, except the aggravated offence under article 3 (2). In this respect, the order differs from the comparable provision in the 1971 Act. The difference is necessary to take account of the accused who just says nothing, and follows the precedent of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
Perhaps I should also refer briefly to article 13(5) of the order, which has no parallel in the 1971 Act. The House will be aware that under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 a range of offences of a kind associated with terrorism are treated as scheduled offences. This means that when tried on indictment—that is, in a higher court —they are heard by a single judge sitting without a jury. The House will know of the reason for that arrangement.
At present, 16 offences under the Malicious Damage Act, and the common law offence of arson, are classified as


scheduled offences. The effect of article 13(5) is that all the main offences under the order, with the exception of the offence of simple damage where fire is not involved, will become scheduled offences. Provision is made, however, for the Attorney-General to certify that an offence shall not be treated as a scheduled offence in a particular case.
These are the main provisions of the order. As I have said, the purpose of the order is to apply to Northern Ireland the provisions of an Act which has worked well in England and Wales since 1971. I believe, and so does the Chief Constable, that the provisions will work equally well in Northern Ireland, and I commend the order to the House.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We congratulate the Minister of State on the way that he explained the order. We welcome the order because it is an important development in the law. There are four new scheduled offences directly or indirectly connected with terrorism. It is a considerable consolidation of the law on terrorism. For that reason it is important for Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State kindly wrote to me and to other hon. Members on 16th November explaining some of the objects. He has elaborated on them sufficiently tonight. But, of course, it is very important that it should be realised what a vast amount of damage is actually done in Northern Ireland at present as a result of damage to property and arson. Can the Minister of State give us an estimate of the total damage to property in Northern Ireland in 1976 at some convenient period either now or later? We were informed by the Daily Telegraph on 3rd February that the cost of damage by fire in 1976 alone was over £40 million whereas in 1975 it had been £13·4 million. It has now more than doubled.
In connection with the new scheduled offences we welcome article 6, which the Minister of State referred to, which imposes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for offences of arson and other unlawful damage under article 3. An important development is the making of threats to destroy or damage property, a scheduled offence, and also the possession of anything with intent to destroy or damage property. Some people might

think that the maximum penalty of 10 years was not quite sufficient, but I make no complaint about that. Obviously, the possession of anything with intent to destroy or damage property could be connected with an offence of terrorism. That is an important development.
We also welcome the fact that, since damage to property is such a major part of the offence of terrorism, this simplifies the law. It will not only counteract terrorism but will help the RUC in its prosecutions, because some of these offences were not adequately covered by the common law or by the Malicious Damage Act 1861. We therefore welcome the order and the way in which the Minister of State commended it to the House.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of State must experience curious sensations when he finds himself a few seconds before ten o'clock discoursing upon the general security situation in Northern Ireland and then, after the lapse of the fraction of a minute and the drawing of one breath, presenting the House with such a lucid and comprehensive explanation of the draft order before it.
However, when the Minister referred to the fact in the previous law the heinous offence—which it clearly is—of damaging or even destroying a hop-bine carried a penalty of 14 years, a doubt just crossed one or two minds whether the Minister of State was quite sure what a hop-bine was.

Mr. Concannon: Mr. Concannon indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: The Minister of State is clearly well briefed and enlightenment will in due course come when he winds up the debate.
The order is not that new dispensation on criminal damage for which we are waiting and which, I hope, will be presented to the House when it comes rather in the form of a Bill than an order.
We are dealing with the harmonisation of the existing code for the punishment of criminal damage in Northern Ireland with that introduced in Great Britain by the statute of 1971.
In Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain hitherto, the basic legislation has been the Malicious Damage Act 1861. It is salutory occasionally to be reminded


that for 122 years the law in Ireland, as in Great Britain, was made exclusively in this House. Of course, some of the law which this House made applied only to Ireland, just as some of the law applied only to Wales or to Scotland. Therefore, in this instance it is not so much the legislation of the last 50 years of the devolved Parliament of Northern Ireland as the legislation of 1861 as it has continued to apply to Ireland which we are bringing up to date.
I do not think that anyone who studies the order and the explanatory material upon it can doubt that this is a rationalisation process which was highly necessary. Although the Act and this order would be necessary if there were no terrorism, I agree with the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that some of the principal effects of the order must be extremely welcome against the background of terrorism.
I should like to refer to three consequences. First, the law relating to such offences is simplified. That must make for quicker and surer administration of justice in that greater flexibility in sentencing is provided. I think that I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will confirm—that, although some harsh penal sentences, such as 14 years for the hop-bine, may be somewhat modified, the general effect is to render the punishment available to the courts more severe under the new code than under the existing one.

Mr. Concannon: Mr. Concannon indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assent. That is one area in which this is a definite gain in present circumstances.
Secondly, there is the new offence of threats. The threat of damage can sometimes in present circumstances in a city such as Belfast be as serious and as much a danger to human life as the actual damage. Indeed, there are circumstances where the relationship could even be inverse and a false alarm or hoax could cause more chaos and loss of life than actual damage. That provision is welcome.
While on that point, I should like to refer to article 4. What is the effect of the words
intending that that other would fear it would be carried out"?

I take it that the object of those words is to exclude from the effect of the article a mere frivolous threat such as might be made either in jest or in some unserious way in circumstances where the person threatened would know that it was not intended to carry out the threat. I trust that there is no question that hoaxes could be excluded by that wording and that the only intention is to eliminate acts which we would all regard as innocent even though in some cases they might be rather foolish. That is the second benefit that we should get from this new dispensation—namely, that the hoax and the threat of violence become a criminal offence.
Thirdly, there is the new offence of possessing articles with the intention of destroying or damaging property. This, clearly, can be a useful weapon to the security forces in the same way as the possession of a firearm is an offence just as is the unlawful use of a firearm.
I draw the Minister of State's attention to article 5, which, I accept, reproduces textually the corresponding section of the 1971 Act but which is extremely difficult, I find, to construe. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accompany me in my difficulties in construing article 5(b). It reads, when construed, as follows:
A person who has anything in his custody or under his control intending …to use it or cause or permit another to use it … to destroy or damage his own or the user's property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of some other person, shall be guilty of an offence.
I think the Minister of State will admit straight away, and will not feel inhibited in admitting, that that is not the most lucid piece of draftmanship with which he has ever been confronted. Although it is already on the statute book, it is not exactly clear in its effect. I think that the user in paragraph (b) is a reference to "another" person in line 2 of the article whom the guilty person may be allowing to use the article, and that the person himself who may be guilty uses it to damage his own property or, alternatively, entrusts it to someone else to use it to destroy that other person's property. But in both cases they must be doing so in circumstances calculated to endanger some life.
I trust that I have roughly got that right but it is a most obscure piece of drafting. If we had been proceeding, as I


hope we shall be in future commonly, by way of a United Kingdom Bill, those dealing with the Bill in its various stages, especially a Bill of this sort that is of particular importance to Northern Ireland, would have had the benefit of the scrutiny and intelligence that Northern Ireland Members could bring to bear upon it. I venture to wager that if the Bill presented in 1971 had been presented in 1977 as a United Kingdom Bill we should have succeeded in making the corresponding clause to article 5 much more lucid.
At all events, this is a piece of uniformity, it is a new area of uniformity of the law in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, to which I believe no possible objection or criticism can apply and from which only advantage can accrue. In that context my hon. Friends and I welcome its having been brought forward.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: I, too, join other hon. Members in welcoming the order. It will be a useful addition to the law, especially in dealing with the terrorist offences that plague us daily.
I do not want to put the Minister of State on the spot but as I thought about the consequences of the order I could not but help think of some of the worst type of offences that result in damage to property—for instance, the crime that we describe as a proxy bombing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder for a moment, as the order is drafted, what sort of penalty would be imposed upon those who use blackmail to cause others to bomb and damage property.
I hope that the Minister will address his mind to dealing with those who conspire to cause damage to property and will see that they will be dealt with in future. I believe that those who conspire and cause others to go out and carry out these jobs are just as guilty and as deserving of heavy penalties as are others. I should like some assurance that the order is wide enough and will be adequate to enable life sentences to be imposed.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: I am grateful for the welcome given to the order. It seeks to pull together and to make more flexible

the laws of Northern Ireland and put them on a par with some other matters in a Northern Ireland context. Furthermore, it seeks to bring parity to the situation.
I am glad that we have not confused the argument in this discussion between compensation and matters involving destruction. If we had confused those considerations, it would have confused the discussion on the order.
I was asked to give a figure of estimated damage last year in Northern Ireland. I can only say that compensation claims have been made and are in the pipeline—in other words, claims are still coming forward. I should not like to attempt to give a figure of such damage because it would be difficult to slot it into a particular year. The figure is quite considerable —well over £100 million—since the legislation came into being. Claims to the extent of about £60 million are now pending.
The report in the Daily Telegraph caused me some concern. I do not know how that newspaper reached its figure. We are examining the situation, and I shall write to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) when we have reached a conclusion.
The first thing I did on hearing the right hon. Gentleman was to find out what a hop-bine was. I am still not exactly sure what a hop-bine is, but I think the right hon. Gentleman now knows the answer. I understand that it is netting that is stretched out among the hops in the same way as one uses such nets for runner beans to run up. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity. I certainly would not argue about the good sense of those who drafted the provisions in 1861 and I would not seek to question their priorities in those days. I merely stressed that matter to suggest that up to now we were working under those laws in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: It has been confirmed to me that hops do not grow in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: It shows how sensible we are to get rid of that legislation. I understand that there are no elephants in Northern Ireland either.
Although article 4 merely follows the wording of Section 2 of the 1971 Act, this will be a valuable new offence in Northern Ireland because in many cases it will apply to persons who make hoax bomb threats. At present the police in Northern Ireland generally have to proceed against such persons either for the common law offence of causing a public nuisance or for wasting police time. That is not a satisfactory situation. Offences under article 4 are punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years. This will be a valuable piece of legislation for the police in Northern Ireland and for the general public. It will do a great deal to prevent frivolous cases being brought.
The word "custody" in article 5 means physical custody and "control" imparts the notion of the power to direct what shall be done with the property in question. The use of the phrase "in his custody or under his control" rather than the term "possession" is intended to avoid the difficulties of interpretation that have arisen in the past.
The essential feature of the proposed offence is not in having custody or control of something that can be used to destroy or damage property since that would include everything from a tin-tack to a bulldozer. It is the intention to use something without lawful excuse to commit damage which makes the possession criminal, as many articles which may on occasion be used to commit criminal damage may be possessed lawfully. The provision includes the intention of causing or permitting another to use the article in question. For example, it may involve an associate of a criminal organisation who keeps materials which may be used by other members of the organisation for a prohibited purpose.
I was also asked about people who destroy their own property. That is not an offence if that is all that is done. But if it is followed up by a claim for compensation or insurance an offence is committed.
I am not 100 per cent. sure about the matter referred to by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) but I shall write to him and tell him whether what he said is correct.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CONSUMER PROTECTION)

10.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Consumer Protection and Advice (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
The order contains two highly desirable provisions which will bring Northern Ireland consumer law further into line with that presently existing in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first will make control of goods which fail to meet safety requirements of Consumer Protection Act regulations more effective. The second will enable district councils to provide advisory services to consumers. The opportunity has also been taken to bring the defences available under the Northern Ireland Consumer Protection Act into line with those in other recent consumer legislation.
It is for the convenience of the House that I leave it that. The provisions are considered to be necessary, and, accordingly, I commend the order to the House.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall be at least as brief as the Minister who introduced the draft order. I should like to ask him two questions. First, by amending the Consumer Protection Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 the draft order will make it possible for proceedings to be instituted against manufacturers or importers who supplied the goods in question instead of or in addition to the retail supplier. By whom will these proceedings be instituted? Will it be by the consumer or the retailer, or both?
I turn to the power to provide advice to or for the benefit of consumers of goods and services. We are informed that


the Belfast City Council is already cooperating closely with the Department of Commerce in the establishment of a multi-purpose advice centre. The question that springs to mind in these difficult days is: what is the cost likely to be? What will be the cost of the similar centre which is to be set up in Londonderry? I shall be obliged if the Minister can give a little information on those points.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It has rightly been said that there are two important aspects to the order. The first is in article 3, which brings Northern Ireland legislation broadly into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the second is in article 4, which deals with consumer advice centres or facilities for giving advice to consumers. It is on article 4 that I wish to dwell. I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister in the hope of extracting further information which will be helpful not only to Northern Ireland Members but, if the debate is reported in the Press, to the public in Northern Ireland.
I first wish to know how the new advice centres will liaise with the existing Northern Ireland Consumer Council which has its headquarters on the Knockbreda Road. Is it not possible that there is duplication in the Belfast area? I understand that the new centre will cost about £50,000. How will it function in a way that is different from the work of the Northern Ireland Consumer Council? Will the operations of these two bodies merge? What is their relationship? If they are to remain separate, can it be argued that there is a need for another advice centre at a cost of £50,000? Is it not possible for the Northern Ireland Consumer Council to work through the Citizens Advice Bureaux, making its expertise available in that way, rather than incurring extra expenditure by giving each district council the right to buy property and establish a fairly elaborate set-up?
Turning now to personnel, I understand that the present Consumer Council is made up only of consumers. The point has been made to be by someone with a life-long interest in this subject that the council could well function more profitably if there were traders represented on it. They could be made aware of the concern over the initial cost of the pro-

duct and its retail price as well as asking the right sort of questions which would help to keep prices at a realistic level. Is the Minister satisfied that there is a broad spectrum of opinion on the council?
I understand that the Northern Ireland Consumer Council does not accept individual complaints but deals largely in generalities. Will the district councils, when they are formed, receive individual complaints and reach decisions on them? If so, that might be one of the best reasons for bringing them into being. Will they go so far as to recommend certain products? There are those of us who feel that this might be the most helpful way for them to do their job. What liaison will exist between the district councils, the weights and measures departments and the Price Commission? Will there be a direct liaison? Is there one at the moment?

10.35 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: The people of Northern Ireland learned last week, not for the first time, that Northern Ireland was the most expensive region in the United Kingdom, and those of us who live there will support that assertion. They were told, I suppose to console them, that the gap between Northern Ireland and the other regions was getting smaller. If that had meant that the cost of living in Northern Ireland was falling there might have been some point in explaining that fact, All that is happening, however, is that the cost of living in the other regions is creeping up. With the exception of very few items, things in Northern Ireland are more expensive than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have discussed some of them at length over the past few weeks. This means, therefore, that Northern Ireland is both the most dangerous part of the United Kingdom in which to live and the most expensive.
Because of his preoccupation with violence and constitutional affairs, I am sure that the average consumer in Northern Ireland is not so aware of his rights as are people in other parts of the kingdom. Any attempt to educate the Northern Ireland consumer to take full advantage of his rights under the law is to be commended. Also to be commended is the drive of the district councils to gain greater powers. Although this is a very small movement, we support


the move to give these councils greater powers.
We are more concerned with making the public cost-conscious so that it wants to get value for money. We must, however, sound a note of caution, and that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) has sought to do. There is little point in establishing centres which cost tens of thousands of pounds through a direct levy on the rates if at the end of the day we do not get value for money. I hope that in using this power the district councils will ensure when setting up their advice centres that they are not duplicating the facilities already provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux, and so on. The advice centres should be tailored to the needs of the smaller community, and they should not go in for elaborate offices operating on a full-time basis. The district councils can use this provision to the advantage of the ratepayers, and I welcome that.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: At the outset I said that the order contained two highly desirable provisions to bring Northern Ireland consumer law into line with the existing law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Consumer Council and the advice centres will cover two different functions. Those of us who represent seats in Great Britain come across these regularly. The Consumer Council deals with the general questions of consumer matters. The advice centres deal with individual complaints and inquiries.
Perhaps I may explain the working of the system as it operates in my area of Nottinghamshire. My county council conducts an examination of a specific area of activity. It then circulates advice, perhaps by advertisements in the newspapers. It might deal with house conveyancing one month, carpets the next and something else the month after. It points out where to get not only the cheapest buys but the best service to go with them. The shops are now accustomed to this method of finding out what they are charging.
I was asked about the prosecution of importers and manufacturers. It would be for the Department of Commerce to

determine which cases are suitable for this approach.
A total of £100,000 has been set aside out of Government funds for the establishment of advice centres in Belfast and Londonderry. A maximum of £60,000 has been promised to the Belfast City Council, in its capacity as agent for the Department of Commerce, towards establishing the advice centre there, provided that it takes over the centre completely after the order comes into operation.
That is not so in Londonderry. The Londonderry City Council would not enter an agreement with the Department of Commerce, so the Department decided to establish an advice centre there and staff it with its own trading standards staff. The cost will be borne by Government funds other than those set aside for establishing advice centres. We hope and anticipate that the Londonderry City Council will take over the centre, but if it will not the centre will close down after a year. Basically it is up to the Londonderry City Council.
If other councils feel that they individually, or an amalgam of a number of them, want to set up an advice centre, they should get in touch with my Department, which will offer all sorts of assistance as long as the money lasts. Those that are first in the queue will be the first to get assistance.

Mr. Bradford: Am I to understand that because the Londonderry City Council is not taking the advice centre under its wing the Belfast ratepayers will have to pay for their centre but the Londonderry ratepayers will not have to pay for theirs?

Mr. Concannon: No. We have set up the centre in Belfast on the understanding that once the order has gone through it will be taken over by the Belfast City Council. There is no problem there. The Belfast council was only too eager and anxious to take over the centre.
In Londonderry we could not come to a similar agreement. The Londonderry council did not want an agreement. So we carried on with the establishment of the centre, and we are staffing it ourselves out of Government funds. If the Londonderry council does not take over the centre after a year, I am afraid it will have to


close. It is our wish that the council will take over this function.

Resolved,
That the Consumer Protection and Advice (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LOCAL ELECTIONS)

10.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
The next general election to district councils in Northern Ireland will be held on 18th May this year, and the purpose of the order is to provide for these and future local elections.
Proportional representation was introduced on an experimental basis for the 1973 local general elections and the provisions of article 4 of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which provided that the single transferable vote system of proportional representation be used, applied only to the 1973 elections and to by-elections for councils elected at them.
Parliament subsequently made provision for the single transferable vote system of proportional representation to be used at Northern Ireland Assembly elections and later for elections to the Constitutional Convention. The order provides for this system to be used at future district council elections. It also gives candidates at contested elections the right to send election addresses post-free, restricts postal voting to persons likely for specified reasons to be unable to vote in person, raises the limits on candidates' expenses and provides for the filling of casual vacancies. Articles 1 and 2 of the order provide for commencement, extent and interpretation. The order applies only to Northern Ireland.
The Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 provides that each ward shall return one member. As proportional representation is being used, it is necessary to group wards into multi-member district electoral areas, and article 3

makes such provision. These areas, which are prescribed in Schedule 1, are the same as those used at the 1973 elections.
Article 4 provides for elections to be held under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation and contains some consequential amendments of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
Article 14 of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 extended the hours of poll for all Northern Ireland elections to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. The extended hours, however, were never used at district council elections, as the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 provided that at the 1973 district council elections the hours of poll would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. It is considered that these hours, which apply also at local government elections in Great Britain, are sufficient, and paragraph (4) of article 4 removes the application of article 14 of the 1973 order to district council elections.
Article 5 relates to candidates. Paragraph (1) provides that a candidate will be nominated for a district electoral area and that the number of councillors to be returned for each district electoral area will be the same as the number of wards in that area. Paragraph (2) provides that a candidate will not forfeit his deposit if he obtains at any stage of the count one-quarter of the quota.
Paragraph (3) gives candidates at contested elections the right to send election addresses post-free. This concession was introduced for the 1973 elections because proportional representation greatly enlarged electoral areas and also because in some areas some candidates were precluded by the security situation from personal canvass in all parts of that area. The size of the areas has not altered, and, sadly, there are still parts of Northern Ireland where a candidate might be prevented from visiting a section of the district electoral area for which he is standing.
Paragraph (4) makes consequential amendments to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.
There was provision in the 1973 Electoral Law Order for unrestricted postal voting. The reduction in the number of polling stations in some areas because of the serious security situation made it


difficult for some electors to vote in person, and, in addition, there was a fear that electors in certain areas would be intimidated into boycotting the poll. The number of polling stations has since increased sufficiently for electors in all areas to vote in person without undue difficulty, and the fear of intimidation at elections has diminished.
It is generally agreed that postal voting should not be unrestricted, and article 6 of the order limits postal voting to Service voters or to those who, because of physical disability, the nature of their work or religious convictions, are likely to be unable to vote in person. This follows the equivalent law in Great Britain.
The limitations on candidates' expenses at local elections in Northern Ireland, particularly those applying to joint candidates, are generally lower than those applicable to local government candidates in England and Wales, and representations were made by Northern Ireland parties for the Northern Ireland limits to be raised. Article 7 makes the limits the same as those applied at local elections in England and Wales.
Articles 8 and 9 deal with casual vacancies. Article 8 provides that district councillors may by unanimous decision appoint a suitably qualified person to fill a casual vacancy. Article 9 provides for an election to be held should the district councillors fail to appoint someone under article 8. This is, of course, the current procedure, and it has worked reasonably well.
As I mentioned earlier, Schedule 1 sets out the district electoral areas for each local government area. Finally, the rules under which elections will be conducted are set out in Schedule 2.
Broadly, the order re-enacts the provisions of article 4 of the 1972 Electoral Order, articles 4 and 6 of the 1973 order and regulations made under the 1972 order. The principal difference in the provisions for future elections is that unrestricted postal voting is to cease.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I thank the Under-Secretary for his clear exposition of the draft order. As he said, the local elections due on 18th May will be the second such elections to

be held according to the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. I had the good fortune to be one of the group of hon. Members from all quarters in the House at that time who toured the Province during the local elections of 1973—the last local elections and the first to be held under the STV system—in order that we could judge the working of the system or attempt to do so for ourselves. It was remarkable and creditable how efficiently the returning, presiding and polling staff concerned applied the new system —which is what one would expect of the public servants and teachers of Northern Ireland who do this sort of work. However, except in Londonderry, I think, the new system has not led to pronounced changes in the party complexion of local councils.
This was also the case when proportional representation was abandoned for Stormont elections after those of 1921 and 1925. Electoral reformers argued that the first-past-the-post system polarised politics and that in Northern Ireland it militated against moderation.
If the House will forgive me for going back in history for a few seconds, let me remind hon. Members that when the question of PR was discussed with British Cabinet Ministers at the time of the Boundary Commission by leaders in the Irish Free State, Kevin O'Higgins favoured its restoration in order
to provide adequate parliamentary representation for minorities.
For his part, Sir James Craig, then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, condemned PR as un-British. It is interesting that Mr. Cosgrave, the father of the present Taoiseach, said that he would like it out of the way in the Irish Free State.
I am not attempting to pronounce about this, but I wonder whether Ministers have received representations for or against STV for local council elections. In Northern Ireland easy accessability of elected persons was highly prized and its disappearance has been deeply regretted. The STV system, with multi-member electoral areas, tends to restrict the close relationship which should exist between councillor and constituent. Therefore, I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would care to say something about this matter when he replies to the debate, and whether he has received any opinions from individuals or bodies about the working of this system.
Under direct rule, as the hon. Gentleman knows, authority has become very remote, particularly because of the "Macrory gap". I hasten to say that Sir Patrick should not be blamed for that, because he reported on the assumption that the mother of Parliaments would not strangler its Ulster Daughter. But the loss of a tier of democratic representation was mentioned by my noble Friend, Lord Belstead when the draft order was considered in another place.
I should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the fears of intimidation have diminished, because he mentioned this in relation to the reduction in the number of polling stations and the ending of unrestricted postal voting which obtained in 1973. I was very much surprised to read the words
the fears of intimidation have diminished". —[Official Report, House of Lord, 17th February 1977; Vol. 379, c. 1756.]
They were uttered by Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge in the other place. I was surprised when I heard the same words from the Under-Secretary's lips just now. I wonder whether that is really true and whether it is a reasonable argument in favour of the change—which may be right. But to say that it is justified because the fears of intimidation have diminished I beg leave to question, in the present state of partial anarchy in the Province.
There is one way in which the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland differs from that on this side of the water. When we were touring Northern Ireland in 1973 I noticed that there did not seem to be much success in preventing the law being broken—perhaps the law is different—with regard to the posting of electoral propaganda on public property, such as telegraph poles and even traffic signs, which is not desirable. The matter is not covered by the order, but does the Under-Secretary expect that when the elections are held next May there will be an improvement in this respect?
Article 8 sets out a procedure which many hon. Members will find strange. I am not aware of a precedent in Great Britain for the filling of casual vacancies on councils by a unanimous decision of councillors. It would be a bit hard if a member of a smaller party, or perhaps an

independent person, wished to contest a seat which had fallen vacant when there was an important local issue at stake and was prevented from standing. Is that desirable? Perhaps there is some very good reason which the Under-Secretary can give us, but on the surface it seems that article 8 would tend to reinforce the polarity of politics which the method of the single transferable vote is intended to mitigate.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: First, I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for agreeing to the request from this Bench for the early publication of the draft order. The Minister will be aware, not being unaccustomed to elections himself, that it is a great benefit to those public servants who have to conduct the elections and to those unfortunates who have to submit themselves as candidates, and the perhaps even more unfortunate people who have to try to get the candidates elected. On behalf of them all, I express our appreciation.
Article 7, dealing with the limitation of election expenses, would appear not to work out quite as intended. Far from increasing the limit, it reduces it in 15 of the 98 district electoral areas. In the old legislation Belfast was treated separately, having a limit of £300, compared with £100 in other areas. I gather from what the Minister said that there is now to be a flat rate for the whole of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has received any representations on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), councillors for Belfast and a country area respectively, may like to fight this out later. Therefore, it might be unfair to involve the Minister at this stage.
With regard to the voting rights of mental patients, there is a marked difference between the law under the Representation of the People Act as it applies in Great Britain and the electoral law of Northern Ireland. Under that Act residents of mental hospitals and establishments are registered and, therefore, have the right to vote. The Minister will be aware that in the report of the Working Party on Electoral Registration


of Patients in Mental Hospitals attention is drawn, in Annexe 1(2) to the special position of Northern Ireland.
As one who was formerly involved in the administration of various mental hospitals and institutions in Northern Ireland, I hope that this is an example where the law in Great Britain could be brought into line with the law in Northern Ireland and not—as all too frequently happens—the other way round. The Minister may like to look at the possibility of drawing the attention of those who are engaged in elections to this variation to that there will be no misunderstanding. The Minister knows that in a Westminster election those people would not be permitted to vote as they would be under the order that we are now discussing.
As to proportional representation, our objections in the past have been based on the fact that the system is regarded as alien and foreign to that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have never accepted that Northern Ireland should be treated differently, and we still hold that view. Nor do we feel that any particular advantage can be derived from it.
I remember that on the day after the first experiment, an hon. Member who, at that time, held considerable responsibility for affairs in Northern Ireland said to me when we met in the Tea Room, "I am afraid that we have to accept that a majority is still a majority, no matter how we fiddle the rules." He was disillusioned about the outcome of the experiment. We could have told him from our own experience that it would not make a bit of difference—except that it does make a difference in the matter that has been drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison); namely, that of breaking the close contact and identification of the electorate in a ward with a specific local councillor. In both town and country areas there will be a situation where there will be perhaps half a dozen councillors milling around in a huge area and an elector will not have any idea as to which one would be most likely to see to the redress of any particular grievance.
I put in that advertisement as a warning to those who may be tempted to

experiment with proportional representation on a larger scale on this side of the Channel. They would be well advised to keep clear of it.
We welcome the order in principle and we trust that the local elections for which it makes provision will proceed smoothly. We also hope that, in due course, when these worthy councillors have been elected they will be given further scope in the shape of improved powers and that that will, in turn, lead to the restoration to Northern Ireland of the missing upper tier of local government that is presently enjoyed by all other citizens of the United Kingdom.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The Minister has said that the order is largely a replica of the existing system of electoral registration except for the fact that we are to be denied postal facilities on the scale that we had in 1973. The reason that has been given for that is that there is less risk of intimidation now in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), I do not see that the intimidation has in any way diminished. The Provisional IRA has not yet announced that it is going political, and since the last elections in Northern Ireland the UVF has been proscribed. At the time of the last elections it was a legal organisation, but now it is illegal. I am certain that the PIRA will do in the next election as it has done in the past; it will not have the courage to put forward candidates because it knows very well that they would be rejected, and the whole philosophy would be rejected with them. Consequently it will attempt to intimidate electors and prevent them from going to the polls. This would have a serious effect on the SDLP and other parties representing the minority in Northern Ireland. It is highly unlikely that the Provisional IRA or its thugs would be able to intimidate loyalists from voting, but in the North Belfast area in which I live I have seen vicious intimidation of electors in 1973 and subsequent elections. I also remember the intimidation that I had to withstand in the two General Elections in 1974.
The Minister cannot truthfully tell us that intimidation in Northern Ireland has diminished. My party would be prepared to fight elections under whatever


regulations are in force, but it would be helpful to people living in ghetto and interface areas, particularly in Belfast, if they could have postal voting as they did at the last election.
No one can take offence at the other provisions in the order. However, the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the STV system was designed to get more moderates elected. Remembering who was elected to City Hall and to the Convention, I can only say that the hen. Gentleman could have fooled me! In many cases, STV had the reverse effect from that suggested by him.
We are having to live with the STV system, and I do not think that it has done any harm. It gave the minority an increase in its number of seats in the Convention, but that was probably because the membership of the Convention was increased from 52 to 78. I do not believe that it will change the decisions of the electorate to any great extent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the SDLP be happy if Northern Ireland returned to a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Fitt: No. We should prefer to have the STV system.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: There are three aspects of the order that I wish to raise. The first deals with the problem of persons wishing to be treated as absent voters. We are told that they must fill in a form and we are told what type of form it is and how it is printed, but there is nothing about how these people are can get their hands on the forms. We need to know. Do they have to write in asking for an application form, will the forms be available from post offices, or will people have to fill in an application form for an application form? This is an important matter.
The second matter relates to the large shifts of population that have taken place in Northern Ireland over the past two years. I am one of the few hon. Members who has been elected to a body under a proportional representation system and in the Limavady Council area where I live we have one ward with 2,000 electors and another with fewer than 200 electors. Such inequity cannot be allowed to con-

tinue and I do not believe that it was ever thought that such a shift of population would take place. I realise that I have probably quoted extremes, but many large shifts are taking place in many areas of Northern Ireland.
We need to know that something is to be done to bring about a more equitable distribution of wards and also a more equitable distribution of areas of electoral population within groups of wards for local government elections. The same will apply to any future election at any level that may be held in Northern Ireland under the proportional representation system.
Thirdly, I turn now to the system of election itself. As I recall it, when the STV system was first proposed for Northern Ireland, all the Press comment that I could get hold of — there was an awful lot of it—seemed to be saying that the aim was to get consensus politics in Northern Ireland, whatever that may mean. We had consensus politics in this House last night, but it did not seem to make everyone happy. I abhor the PR system not only because it was brought into being to destroy the party of which I am a member, but because of its inherent defects. It failed in the object of destroying the Unionist Party, and for that I am eternally grateful to the sensible people of Northern Ireland, who continued to elect it and who will, no doubt, continue to do so for many years.
Under this system of election it is easier to get elected. It is a refuge for minority viewpoints which have fancy but not always soundly-based policies. They can, nevertheless, put themselves forward, get a fair bit of publicity, and get elected. It is also a way out for people who want to avoid making hard decisions, because it can be used to obscure the issue before the people. Because it fudges the issue so much, it makes people seek an easy way out.
But generally in such a situation there is not an easy way out, and in the long run the system will only make matters worse. Above all, it removes responsibility from the representative of a single geographical area in which, regardless of his party, he at one time, under the old system, became a unifying force. Now the single Member has been replaced by


a number of equally powerful, equally responsible—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Equally irresponsible.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend has chosen the better word—equally irresponsible representatives of the people in those areas, representatives who have to compete against each other.
Publicity becomes the thing for them. Those of us who have lived with this system know that to be true. It is not as great a force at local level as in the steps above, but it is a system abominable to work in and with and one that I shall reject as long as I live. By putting different parties, different viewpoints and different personalities within the same geographical area, we do not make the divisions less; we make them ever deeper, ever more bitter and ever more vicious. That cannot be avoided under such a system.
Some people think that competition between public representatives at any level leads to better representation. It does nothing of the sort. It does not lead to better service to the electorate. It means that the representatives, even those from the same party, very often play each other off—and the electorate will do that even if the representatives do not. It means that publicity for what one has done or what one is alleged to have done becomes the thing. It means that the sensible person can often get chopped down because he is not publicity conscious—I say that with great feeling because I have seen it happen at all levels, and it is something that no political party can afford and no country can afford.
The destruction of the representative principle is dangerous for the representatives. It is dangerous for political parties as we know them in this country. It is eventually a dangerous thing for the people. Proportional representation leads to quick success. It means far too often a reduction in the general standards of behaviour of both electorate and representatives.
Finally, and above all, it tends to confuse the electorate. I believe that any political party with a solid, saleable policy will get itself elected—the present Government got themselves elected in

1974 because they had a saleable product. I believe that any party with a solid policy can get itself elected if it can sell its policy. If not, it is because that policy is inherently unacceptable to the electorate in the area.
I beg the Governmenet to think again about proportional representation before the next local government elections in Northern Ireland. We should get rid of that system, and the sooner the better.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) did not update his review of proportional representation in Ireland by telling the House that only a few years ago Jack Lynch tried and failed to have it abolished in the Republic. Whether that commentary supports what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I shall not try to elaborate now.
The Minister told us that the original intention was not to have proportional representation in the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Great care and attention and a lot of time was put into devising wards so that allegations of gerrymandering could not be made. After that work had been carried out, because they wanted to introduce proportional representation, the wards were grouped together in the best possible way. Unfortunately, the best possible way is not the best way if there is to be proportional representation. I am assuming that is a fait accompli now.
Wards were grouped together to make some kind of sense, but the operation was a catastrophe for reasons which have been mentioned. For example, one of the bigger groups of wards in my constituency covers an electoral district stretching from the middle of Portadown to the middle of Lurgan and it has six representatives. Five of those representatives live within half a mile of the western boundary of that district. Therefore, four or five electoral areas do not have representatives within them. That is not due to the size of the area. It is one of the weaknesses of proportional representation.
At the last election it was suggested that an attempt would be made after the election to allocate people to particular wards. No attempt has been made to do


that. Will the Minister tell us whether consideration has been given to that suggestion?
Undoubtedly, those who are elected under this system are responsible to everyone and to no one at the same time. The system creates many problems for us. After a constituent has visited all six or seven representatives in a local council area and got no satisfaction, he finishes up at our door. Of course, he omits to tell us that has has been to all these other people. It is normally left to the Minister to tell us that he has already been approached on so many occasions by other people.
The Minister has been asked to consider widening the allocation of postal votes. I suggest that would be and is dangerous with a proportional representation system. If it were a straight system, as for election to this place, I should say by all means let us have it if it is thought that the pressure on the community is such as to deter people from voting in the ordinary way.
But there are abuses in the system. If one party is collecting postal votes for one candidate, the abuse is not great because those postal votes will go to that one candidate. But we had a classic case in Armagh during the Convention election. The SDLP—I asked the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to remain, but he is not here—collected and brought all the postal votes to one central location. The candidates who were standing for the Convention then met to decide how to allocate the postal votes to each other.
Seamus Mallon, one of the candidates, managed to convince the meeting that he was in most danger of not being elected. A decision was taken that most of the postal votes would be marked up and given to him as first preference. The consequence was that poor Paddy O'Hanlon, who had represented South Armagh for many years, failed to get elected. That is because he did not get a sufficient share of the postal votes.
The account of the meeting was published in a journal in Ireland and Seamus Mallon threatened to take action. As he did not do so, I can only conclude that the account of the meeting was correct. That is one argument for not having a proportional representation system on

this occasion. I hope that we shall stick to the standard procedure as is laid down.
The Minister may also remember that there was a dispute about candidates' qualifications at the last election. In the review of qualifications has any action been taken to avoid the type of dispute that occurred in Fermanagh District Council, which did not set that council off on the right footing?
The last matter that I raise is of particular regard to Northern Ireland. I refer to the situation when someone is though to be personating and he is so challenged by a polling agent. In the regulations it states that before he is arrested the polling agent who makes the oral challenge has to commit himself in writing that he is prepared to go to court and allege that the individual is personating. If the unfortunate person is caught and accused of personating and if the polling agents reneges and refuses to sign, is there any action that the aggrieved person can take against the false allegation against him? If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I hope that he will contact me later.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In many of the draft orders that come before the House at this time of night we are bringing the law in Northern Ireland into accord with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a process that my hon. Friends and I heartily support. Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom, we never fail to proclaim that in our opinion the law that applies to those who live there should be as far as possible identical with the law that applies to those who live in Great Britain. We assert that the burden of proof is on those who say that the law in Northern Ireland should be different in any particular case.
The three orders that the House has been dealing with this evening have all been of that character. The two that we have disposed of have produced homogeneity in their respective spheres between the law in Northern Ireland, which they have altered from what it was hitherto, and the law in Great Britain. Now we come to the third order, but here we stop half way.
The order brings the law on local elections into accord, in most respects, with


that prevailing in Great Britain. It brings the law for postal voting at local elections into accord with the law for postal voting in Great Britain. That, I think, is right. I think, with the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that it is right not because of any diminution which there may or may not be of the prevalence of intimidation but because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has amusingly explained, there has been widespread and quite intolerable abuse.
In presenting myself for the first time as a candidate for a parliamentary election I was amazed by the behaviour of some of my supporters and the expectations they appeared to attach to the possibility of accumulating hundreds of postal votes. Having secured my first election to this House by the fact that my workers and I had managed to accumulate more postal votes than my opponents, and thus created the small margin by which I was first elected, I was astounded by their enthusiasm for hundreds of postal votes and the immense demand for postal ballot forms. I discovered that they had made a mistake and had assumed that the law at parliamentary elections was the same as that under which they had conducted local government elections.
This opened my eyes to the possibilities of abuse under the unrestricted postal vote system. That is sufficient to cure any but foolish people in Great Britain who argue in favour of further major extensions of the facilities for postal voting. I am sure that in parliamentary elections we have gone as far as it is wise or right to go, and I am also sure that the law for local government elections should be the same as for parliamentary elections. Therefore, I welcome the step towards uniformity brought in by this order.
But at that point the enthusiasm of the Government for producing uniformity in all parts of the United Kingdom comes to a dead halt, for they maintain in this order the difference introduced by this House for the special benefit of Northern Ireland in 1972. In Northern Ireland in 1972 the law on local government elections was made different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to

produce specific results which those in charge of affairs wanted to see produced in Northern Ireland. In short, they hoped that it would result in fewer Unionist and more non-Unionist candidates being elected. It was a piece of gerrymandering by the imperial Parliament and the imperial Government based on the incomprehension of the real circumstances in Northern Ireland on which the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were at that time operating.
We now all know and admit—this has been admitted from both sides of the House tonight —that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the proportional representation system —the single transferable vote—has not altered the balance of the parties appreciably at all.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that it was an advantage that there had been more seats in total. Perhaps that is so—and so say we in respect of representation in this House. It would be an advantage if there were more seats in total, but we do not claim that there would be an alteration in the proportion or balance of political representation as a result. Nor has there been an alteration as a result of the gerrymandering of 1972 in the representation of the respective parties elected at local government elections. But what has happened is that a stigma has been placed on the people of Northern Ireland—namely, that they are to operate under an electoral system which the rest of the United Kingdom rejected and is not prepared to accept—and which, I opine, should there ever, by any mischance, be any direct elections to a European Parliament, will not be accepted for those direct elections.
It has had an odd effect: the stigma of deliberate differentiation without purpose. But it has also had the effect that the results have been severely to damage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) described so eloquently and vividly, popular representation and the representative principle and responsibility in local government in Northern Ireland.
The first three hours of this Supply Day, so generously placed by the official Opposition at the disposal of various minority groupings in the House, were spent by the Liberal Party peddling once


gain their demand for proportional representation. It is greatly to be regretted that a cross-section of hon. Members who took part in that first debate of the day, and particularly the occupants of the Liberal Bench, did not stay on to this relatively early hour to receive the benefit of the ounce of practical experience instead of the ton of mere theory in which the Liberal Party deals. Then they would have been able to learn and hear from those who have actually experienced it what is the effect of proportional representation upon the representative principle, what abuses and what disorders it introduces into representative, democratic bodies.
I add only my own observations on the effects of it in my own constituency. I take from the district of Banbridge, in which I reside, the electoral district area B which comprises eight wards. By the way, while I am dealing with wards I draw attention to the fact that the absurdity is crystallised in the order in article 5(1), which says that there are to be as many councillors as there are wards but the candidates are to be nominated for the district electoral areas.
Another personal reminiscence: I was puzzled when I began to find my way round the electoral registers in Northern Ireland at the phenomenon of wards. I inquired what the purpose of the wards was. I discovered that they were not used for any ascertainable electoral purpose. They were not used for polling because at that time there were polling districts. They were not used for local government elections. They had no purpose except for slicing up the register into inconvenient slices.
Here is the nonsense in article 5 (1). The whole electorate is to be divided into wards, the purpose of wards being to elect representatives. Even in the City of London, which hon. Members opposite despise and want to abolish, the wards are electoral areas. We may not approve of the methods but wards have a meaning. But wards in Northern Ireland have no purpose. One creates them, one produces statistics and organises the register in terms of wards, but then one makes no use of them.
I turn to district area B of district 16 to which I was about to come. It comprises the ward of Croob and the ward of

Dromore. The ward of Croob is a huge ward with relatively low population and comprises the Dromara Hills, that landmark that is visible from most parts of the eastern half of the Province and which rises to a peak in Slieve Croob where people who are so minded can visit the Army post which is sited there, mostly in mist and other unfavourable climatic conditions.
Dromore comprises not the whole but the central part of a small and highly historic cathedral town. It is totally absurd that there should be the same—I was going to say representation, but that would be under-stating the case—block of eight representatives for the inhabitants of Croob and the inhabitants of Dromore. Of course the inhabitants of Dromore ought to have a representative who would be representative of Dromore —and the people of Croob ought to have a representative of Croob.
I will say more. The representative of Dromore and the representative of Croob ought to have their different points of view when they come to the Banbridge District Council. They should be arguing for different priorities and should be representing different conditions and explaining to their fellow councillors how different are the circumstances of their respective constituencies.
That is what representative Assemblies are all about. That is what happens in this House and what happens in every elected authority in Great Britain. But it is what is prevented from happening in Northern Ireland by proportional representation.
It may happen by accident—it would only be by accident, but it is unlikely—that one representative would come from Croob. It is more likely that one would come from Dromore, and even more likely that more than one would come from Dromore.
The whole thing is an obscenity from the point of view of elective democracy. It is the most undemocratic system that could be devised. Why is it being perpetuated by a Government who have set themselves—and they have had all our support and encouragement—to the business of producing uniformity of law in this integral part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland—with the rest of the United Kingdom? It is because—I shall


offer them, as I believe it to be, the most generous explanation—we can only crawl out gradually from under the shadow of our past follies.
The follies of 1972 were not, in the first instance, the follies of the Labour Party. The Labour Party only went along with the follies perpetrated by the Conservative majority. Nevertheless, a certain guilt by association with these follies attaches to the Labour Party. So there have been successive decompression chambers through which they have succeeded in reascending to the atmosphere after having plunged so deeply into the follies of 1972 and 1973.
I do not wish to be ungenerous. Here is one decompression chamber that has worked. We have got rid of the notion that all will be well if everybody can vote by post. We have still to get rid of the notion that all will be well—but only in Northern Ierland—if there is election by the single transferable vote. We shall have in due course an order that will produce uniformity with the rest of the United Kingdom and restore genuine elective democracy to Northern Ireland.
I give warning that my right hon. Friends and I will not cease to complain of this system, which we are unhappily perpetuating tonight, until it is removed by a further order, or by a single clause in a Bill, by which the thing can be simply done, as the best dentist can extract a rotten tooth.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Carter: I should like to preface my remarks on the observations of individual Members by relating my own experiences as the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, I have spent some considerable time going to all parts of the Province, not on fleeting visits but spending two and three days in some places as the guest of the local authorities. Although this order has generated some heat in some respects tonight, I have not discovered—and I do not say this simply to defend the order but merely to record my experience—that there has been a great deal of hostility towards the system of democracy that we have in Northern Ireland.
In defence of local authorities and those serving on them I can say that there is a tremendous amount of good will among all shades of opinion.

Mr. Powell: Of course there is.

Mr. Carter: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says "Of course there is." I find that a lot of people in Great Britain believe that people in Northern Ireland are at each others' throats all the time. I said that I would give my own experiences because this is an opportune moment to put on record the fact that there are scores of people of widely differing political persuasions on local authorities in Northern Ireland who get on extremely well together.
I have been to the Belfast City Council and talked to the assembly there. I have spoken to the Londonderry City Council. I have been to Armagh, Newry and many other councils besides. Without exception I found that people got on extremely well together in spite, as we have heard, of the controversy that surrounds some aspects of the democratic structure there.

Mr. Molyneaux: Would the Minister accept my assurance that if, in his key Department, he was to decide that he could add yet another upper tier of responsibility, he would find that there again the elected representatives would work happily and constructively for the good of the people who sent them there?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member has had a good deal to say on that subject recently. As my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear, it is for the political parties in Northern Ireland and others to come together to produce something that will be acceptable to the broad mass of the people in Northern Ireland. We await such an emergence. If it emerges I have no doubt that the people will come forward to fill the places on such a body and will get on extremely well together. It is as well that the House knows this because there is a great deal of ignorance in the rest of the United Kingdom about the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He asked whether there had


been any petition against the retention of the single transferable vote system. The simple answer is "No." We have had no criticism, in a petition form at least. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the proposed relationships between elected representatives and the people they represent might suffer as a result of STV. I can only say that from personal experience I have not found this to be so. I do not think, from my discussions with the Association of Local Authorities on a wide range of subjects, that there is any criticism of the system in that respect.
He referred to the powers of local authorities, which I suppose are bound up with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). There is the so-called Macrory gap which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One would hope that in the not-too-distant future that gap will be bridged.
As Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment I shall do all I can to increase the ability of local authorities to participate more in the functions for which they are currently not responsible. Hon and right hon. Members will have noticed that in the recent change in housing policy, as it is now directed at Belfast, I have now involved the city council in the housing drive to rebuild and renovate Belfast. I believe that in vital matters such as housing the elected representatives have an important part to play. I sincerely hope that the city council can work fruitfully with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, myself and the Department in bringing about a transformation of Belfast.
The hon. Member referred to intimidation and asked whether it had increased. My impression is that the next round of local elections will not be accompanied by the same level of intimidation as may have existed in the past. Westminster elections have been held without a significant degree of intimidation.
The hon. Member asked about bill-posting. The law in Northern Ireland is basically the same as the law in the rest of the United Kingdom on this matter. We shall be taking all steps possible to ensure that billposting is kept to an absolute minimum.
The hon. Member concluded his remarks by asking how the casual vacancies were filled. The method employed may not be a perfect way of dealing with the matter, but, once again, it seems to have worked out pretty well in practice. There have been no objections to the method used for the lifetime of the last elections.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What was the reason for instituting this procedure? Is the Department against by-elections?

Mr. Carter: The reason is that it simply maintains the party balance as it was at the time of the elections. It appears to have worked out extremely well. Casual vacancies have occurred and people have been nominated to fill them. There has been no criticism of the system as far as I am aware.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South questioned the changes in the expense limits. Generally, the limits have moved up, although some have moved down. Now that we have a flat rate plus a sum per elector there is a tendency to proportionality across the board. The rights of mental patients are exactly the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member questioned, as did other hon. Members, the whole philosophy of proportional representation. He said that the system was quite alien. He will not expect me to deal at length with the question of PR. I can only say that from personal experience I have not heard any great criticism of the system. I know that hon. Members who are used, in a Westminster sense, to something entirely different have different views from people who are involved in local government in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) opened his remarks with a criticism of the fact that we are restricting postal voting. He was probably alone tonight in defending the past practice. There was the opportunity for a great deal of abuse, and that has been the experience. I listened with interest to the story of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I do not know whether it is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast West was out of the Chamber at the time. Perhaps if he gets together with the hon. Member for Armagh later he will get the story.
There is no doubt the there is an opportunity for abuse with an unrestricted system, and I am pleased that hon. Members welcome the fact that this practice is to be the subject of some restrictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West referred to the practice of intimidation. The last two sets of Westminster elections have gone off reasonably well without any significant incidence of intimidation, and I hope that this will be repeated at the local government elections in May.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked how a man or woman who is absent can acquire a postal ballot form. If a person is absent and does not know about the elections, he or she will not get a vote. If a person is absent and knows about the election, he or she will have to make an inquiry in order to vote. There is no obligation on the authorities to seek out people and inform them.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Where will the forms for absent voters be available, and how does a citizen go about getting one?

Mr. Carter: The electoral officer will have the forms. The hon. Member must know the practice. The citizen will have to go and get one himself or write away for one. It is a simple procedure.
Reference has been made to the fluctuating electorates in Northern Ireland, and clearly this is a problem. Given the security situation, there is nothing we can do. We hope that a maximum number of people will get their names on to the electoral register.
The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the question of proportional representation. I know that he feels that it is alien. But if he talks to councillors in Londonderry, as I have, he will find that it works quite well. The hon. Member for Armagh spoke of the weaknesses of proportional representation. I suppose that all electoral systems have weaknesses of one kind or another. It is largely a matter of opinion, practice, and, above all, custom.
Councillors' qualifications are determined by the Local Government Act, and while I am unaware of the problem in Fermanagh which has been mentioned, there is no reason why there should be

any difficulty in the next elections. The problem of personation was also raised. I am not sure about that one I will write to the hon. Member for Armagh about it.
The right hon. Member for Down South supported strongly the suggestion that we restrict postal voting. With the sole exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast West, this proposal has been received with unanimous approval tonight. The right hon. Member for Down, South concluded with a wide-ranging criticism of the PR system and suggested that we might come back at some time in the future with a Bill, presumably in another stage of the decompression procedure, bringing Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member a time, place or date for such an event, but with his persistence and that of his colleagues, perhaps such a Bill may one day come about.
However, at this moment the experiment is continuing. I hope that tonight the order and all that is in it will receive the support of the whole House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

THE UNIFICATION CHURCH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Ashton.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: In October 1975 I raised on the adjournment the activities of the so-called Unification Church and I trust that the evidence that I presented then will be considered in conjunction with what I say tonight, so as to avoid repetition. Sixteen months later, however, the Home Office is still considering the evidence, the DPP has not yet acted and the Charity Commissioner has been playing Pontius Pilate, while lives are wrecked and fraud prospers. Meanwhile, I have a file of such massive proportions that the leader of the Moon cult would tremble in his paranoid shoes were the contents made available by a full public inquiry.
Only the use of widespread intimidation, backed by the infinite resources of what is now estimated to be a $50 million empire, prevents the Press from doing more than scratch the slimy surface of what must be one of the most evil phenomena of our times. In a letter dated 27th January 1977 to Mr. Johnson, the vicar of Stratton St. Margaret, who has done sterling work in countering this bogus and blasphemous private army, the Charity Commissioner admitted:
Unification Church appears to be a collective name covering many different organisations and it has not, so far as I am aware, applied for registration on the Central Register of Charities under that name. There are two charities registered which are concerned with the teachings of Sun Myung Moon:

1. The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity; the activities, incidentally, are stated to be 'throughout the world'.
2. The Sun Myung Moon Foundation."

Both refer to the "Divine Principle", which has as much in common with Christianity as had Ghengis Khan.
The Charity Commissioner takes no cognisance of the "Divine Principle", which, on his own admission, he has not read. He refuses to consider the interlocking matrix of organisations which take advantage of the charitable status of the parent charity, the Sun Myung Moon Foundation, and the other charity and which promote political propaganda. He takes no cognisance of the pattern of fraudulent collecting and the convictions for collecting without permits, which unfortunately merely deal with the small fry. He takes no cognisance of Moon's involvement in fraud, corruption, bribery of Congressmen and intelligence gathering, in spite of the current revelations in the USA. He is blissfully content to ignore the heart-rending letters of parents and families torn apart by their activities and the psychological techniques which they employ to brainwash disturbed youngsters into becoming itinerant candle vendors for the greater profit of Moon and the benefit of their British leader, Mr. Dennis Orme.
Indeed, the Charity Commissioner has far more discretion than he has ever admitted. His action on the Exclusive Brethren, for instance, contrasts starkly with his inaction on these fraudulent

charities. I now have a list of 82 organisations which are front organisations for Mr. Moon, many of them operating in this country. They use the same premises and the same personnel as the charities. Two of them—Unified Family Enterprises and Cartographer Crafts Ltd.—are limited companies. Others, like the One World Crusade or the Foundation for World Peace and Unification, are equally indistinguishable, but they act as the political wings of what is supposed to be a charity, and certainly political ends cannot be charitable ends. No one has bothered to examine their sources of finance, or, indeed, those of the International Cultural Foundation, yet another of the very many front organisations.
Mr. Orme, the Director of the Unification Church, Trustee of the Sun Myung Moon Foundation, Director of Research for the Federation for World Peace and Unification and, indeed, acknowledged in a whole number of newspapers on different dates to be the leader of the cult in Britain, stated as follows in his own magazine on 30th June 1975:
Jesus taught that we should hate our father and mother and love him first.
It is this doctrine that has brought myriads of letters pouring in to me. I want to read from just one, received last week, because three-fifths of these youngsters are sent abroad, mainly to Korea and Japan, and countless parents would come forward but are blackmailed into silence for fear of losing contact permanently with their children. The letter that I wish to read says this:
Since I last wrote to you about my son with the Unification Church in Japan, there have been developments that I want you to know about.
On the afternoon of 31st January I had a 'phone call to say Tony was on his way home and would be arriving about 8 p.m. Well he was brought in, he didn't recognise anybody, didn't speak, just a vacant expression on his face. The two ladies made a quick exit saying they had a train to catch back to London (I later realised they had come by car). It wasn't till they had gone that I realised what Tony was really like. He wouldn't, or couldn't eat or drink, so we got him straight to bed. We even had to undress him and put him into bed. He was also incontinent. I called the doctor the next morning, he came and said he would have to go into hospital, but he got a psychiatrist to see him as well who also agreed he must go into hospital. …
That day I got another 'phone call from Mr. John Ralph"—


that is one of the Moonies—
(he rang as soon as Tony arrived home as well) saying Tony was fine on the Sunday. But what he didn't say was that Tony had been in England a week. We found that out from his passport.
That is the experience of one parent. It is exactly in line with the research of Professor John Clark, an American psychiatrist who had a public meeting in the House of Commons on 19th July last year and who said that his research had shown
that one-third of the recruits were schizophrenic, one-quarter had personality problems and 42 per cent. were passing through the normal process of maturation…
Unacceptable pressures were applied to potential recruits. Once brainwashed they were taught to raise funds. The motivation for the organisers in the case of the Unification Church is private gain, and a lot of money is involved.
Mrs. Lees, who lives in Wiltshire, was reported in the Daily Mail on 25th September of last year as saying about her son, who is now in Japan,
Converts are preached at 12 or 13 hours a day. They go into a stupor. They act like slaves to the movement.
I shall not repeat the experiences of the Rank's daughter, which I outlined in the previous debate on this subject.
I have case history after case history and sworn testimony of ex-members. I have the diary of a girl, Rosalind Mitchell, whose father was conned into giving away an £800,000 estate in Stanton Fitzwarren. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has raised the question of pressure to hand over money to the sect in relation to one of his constituents. In the Rank's case there was some attempt in relation to a £27,000 inheritance. There are letters of a similar nature on my file from all parts of the country. I have to treat many of them in confidence because the parents are too terrified to speak out loud.
A short analysis by Marvin Calper, a doctor of philosophy and clinical psychologist, describes the brainwashing process as follows:
Suppression of the individual's rational judgment process is fostered by sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment. Mobilisation of guilt and anxiety in the indoctrinee intensifies this inhibitoin of judgmental processes

and at the same time to heighten suggestibility a child-like ego state is fostered in the individual. He is constantly manipulated and modelled by skilfully applied methods of indirect suggestion.
Rosalind Mitchell's deposition, which I have, confirms this. The special report on the Unification Church, its activities and practices of 18th February 1976 in the United States gives countless letters of testimony from parents and ex-member victims. A suicide, an attempted suicide, a woman who wound up in the intensive care unit of a psychiatric hospital in Boston and an inordinate number of trauma cases in another hospital near the Moonies' 205-acre estate at Barrytown are just a few examples.
All this is relevant to this country, whatever the Charity Commissioner says, because British citizens are sent to the United States on 40-day training courses, with a lure of a £10 fare but with no knowledge of what they are in for. Many of the converts are sent to the United States. Three of these students are now officers of a group which has been formed to counter that body, a group of which I am chairman, called Family Action Information and Rescue. It works together with parents and relatives, clergymen of all denominations and journalists who have been horrified by what they have seen. All are able to testify to what Carol Stedman, a former Moonie, described as "a nightmare called Moon."
Mr. Moon's tax-exempt status in the United States, according to last Sunday's issue of The Observer, brings him in £15 million income a year. In this country his followers are contributing to his baronial residence, his two yachts, two limousines and bodyguards through the benevolence of the Charity Commissioner, who has eyes but will not see.
These are just random examples. Another is a girl with a brain tumour at the Moonie headquarters at Lancaster Gate, which are guarded night and day, not so that people cannot get in but so that they cannot get out. She was told by the leader of the sect in Britain, Mr. Orme, that universities and colleges were Satanic. As Dr. Beckford, now doing research on the subject, wrote in Psychology Today:
Marriages and engagements have been broken when one partner acknowledges Moon as lord and master. Promising careers have been shattered and families have been split.


Richard Dunn, a former member, described in a letter to me how:
For something I did wrong, getting up two hours late, say, I would be punished by being forced to kneel in a prayer position for three hours … All my freedom had been taken away from me by them.
Meanwhile, on 5th August 1973 at the Washington Hilton, the Freedom Leadership Foundation, whose finances are totally mixed up with the charitable bodies and which acts as the political wing in the United States, was listening to Mrs. Orme and enjoying a six-course menu of iced fruits, breast of chicken, black cherries in port wine sauce and crushed strawberries. I know, because I have the menu.
Nearer home, in February 1973 The Family News, published at Rowlane Farm, Dunsden, another of the sect's properties, was urging its converts to
'Get on with selling … the funds we had were spent on the costs of travel and clothes for those who went to America. Sell fast. Go like the blazes!!! Be adventurous for God. He will protect you and yours. He will be right behind you. Remember, when you are out on the pavement doing your bit for Father"—
Moon—
that you are the children of True Parents. Think of the leader. Think of him wearing a crown as the King of Kings.
If ever there was an incitement to break the law, couched in rather odd phrases, that was it. Indeed; the Moonie pledge includes swearing
I will fight with my life
for Moon.
But out on the pavement, following convictions at Newquay in 1975, on 20th January of this year another conviction for unauthorised sale occurred in Bristol. On the previous day a spokesman for Guildford Borough Council had said that the Holy Spirit Association had not been issued with a street traders' licence and could be fined under the Guildford Corporation Act. He said:
The sect founded by 56-years-old Korean divorcee and multi-millionaire Sun Myung Moon has been investigated by Guildford police following several attempts to sell leaflets and goods without a licence.
I have had reports of obtaining by deception or other offences from all over the country. The last one came last Sunday from a lady who works on the religious programme on Scottish radio in Edinburgh.
The paranoic Mr. Orme had the effrontery to complain to the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, alleging a conspiracy involving Chief Inspector Foulkes and me in a vendetta against the Unification Church. His allegation was investigated and Mr. Orme was informed that his allegations were without foundation, as I was informed in a letter of 6th August 1976.
Undoubtedly Orme commands the operation of these charities, companies and other multifarious bodies in Britain. The Sunday Mirror of 26th September 1976 described him as
intimidating … The most terrifying man I have ever met".
I mention this because any individual who dares to criticise the Unification Church is likely to receive a libel writ from three unknown youngsters, dupes who have been appointed trustees of Holy Spirit Association and whose own parents have written to me. If they are using the funds of a registered charity for such action they are acting ultra vires. Heaven nows where the money comes from, but perhaps Mr. Moon knows.
The Minister should consider this financial aspect since I have had it confirmed from independent sources that their accountant has been attempting to obtain loans of up to £600,000 on the collateral of property owned by these registered charities to export it illegally to the USA—to which end two meetings were held in Geneva. The sources are impeccable but confidential.
How would the money be used? The answer lies in current inquiries in the USA Internal Revenue Service into the illegal import of money and the Federal inquiry into corruption and intelligence by Moon' entourage. The Washington Post, the Guardian, the Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph have all carried reports of the involvement of Moon, his interpreter and closest aid, Pak Bo Hi, and Tongsui Pak, an investor in his Diplomat Bank, in a conspiracy to bribe Congressmen, obtain contracts, provide prostitutes and to influence US policy in Korea.
The Financial Times exposed the connection between the FLF and the Korean CIA on 12th July 1976. A Dr. Lee, who sought political asylum in the US in 1973, revealed the same. Alan Tate Wood,


former leader of the FLF, which is the political wing of the so-called charity, also defected, and I have one of the three copies of his statement in this country. I shall read one passage that I regard as significant. It says:
Moon's is the only 'Christian' group in Korea that has not suffered at the hands of President Park's brutal suppression of free speech and civil liberties. Moon, far from repudiating the Park government's beating and torture of Korean ministers, sponsored and organized a pro-government rally last summer in which 1,200,000 people participated according to a press release given by the Unification Church in Washington. This is the equivalent of John the Baptist holding a pro-government demonstration in Jerusalem in support of King Herod.
What does Moon himself say? We know Mr. Orme entertained Korean diplomats at his rather spacious home when he lived at Barn Hill and that he used to drive a white Jaguar there, but what of Moon? He says of Christianity:
The Christians are the ones who hate us most, they hate us because Satan is in them.
This is what he says of Jews:
The 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust were paying their just indemnity for killing Christ.
He says of his goals:
The whole world is in my hands and I will conquer and subjugate the world.
Moon says:
The present U.N. will be destroyed by our power.
He has also said:
The time will come without my seeking it, that my words will almost serve as law. If I ask a certain thing it will be done.
Moon has said:
Our strategy is to be united into one with ourselves, and with that as the bullet, we can smash the whole world.
To his followers he has said:
Even if you have to be beaten and driven out to the place of death, if you are ready to obey your True Parents—
Moon and wife—
in utter devotion then you are sure to go the heavenly course
Another is:
In order for you to be a dynamic lecturer, you must know the knack of holding and possessing the listeners' hearts. If there appears a crack in the man's personality, you wedge in a chisel, and split the person apart.
God knows how many people have been split apart in this country while the Home Office and the Charity Commissioners have done nothing about these charities.
What emerges from the thousands of documents in my files, which are open to inspection, is that Moon is a megalomaniac and degenerate who used to indulge in what was called a blood cleansing ceremony of intercourse with his female initiates. He was expelled from Korea for corrupting public morals and he has built a vast commercial and political empire based on barbarian methods and intimidation of opponents. The one thing that he cannot do is to silence a British Member of Parliament, even with 100 libel writs, though he can bribe American Congressmen—we have certain advantages here.
He is a political pimp and gangster who has proclaimed himself to be the Messiah who will succeed where Christ failed, yet the Home Office have written in a letter that he is not an undesirable—and this at a time when it is about to deport the American journalist who first exposed Moon.
I have only 20 minutes in this debate. I have enough on my files to speak for 20 days on what I know about Moon and these charities. I only hope that the Home Office and the Charity Commissioners will do something to deal with what I have referred to as a rather nasty cancer in our midst.

12.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I appreciate the concern with which my hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) views the position and activities of the various bodies associated with Sun Myung Moon. My hon. Friend has been both assiduous and meticulous in accumulating information about these bodies. Much of this he has passed to the Home Office, where we have studied carefully all the material he has sent in. My colleagues and I have been left in no doubt about my hon. Friend's strength of feeling in the matter and the active concern he has devoted to the subject.
My hon. Friend has chosen to relate the debate tonight specifically to the charitable status of the Sun Myung Moon Foundation and its associated bodies. The first thing that I have to say to my hon. Friend on the question of charitable status is that it is a matter for which there is no ministerial responsibility


whatever. Decisions on the registration of charities are solely for the Charity Commissioners to take, in accordance with their interpretation of the law and consistently with the duties imposed on them by statute. The commissioners' decisions are subject to appeal, not to any Minister, but to the High Court. Short of legislation—which it would not be in order for us to discuss this evening—there is no way in which my right hon. Friend could intervene in these matters.
Secondly, I must make it clear that registration as a charity does not imply a value judgment regarding the effectiveness or desirability of the organisation that is registered. It simply means that the objects of the organisation, as expressed in its deeds, are charitable according to the general criteria of English law, under which charitable purposes include inter alia the advancement of religion. On the question, therefore, of charitable status for organisations connected with Mr. Moon, all that I can do to assist my hon. Friend and the House is to state briefly the facts as I have ascertained them from the Charity Commissioners and to explain how the matter now stands.
There are two bodies registered as charities in England and Wales which are connected with Mr. Moon. One, the Sun Myung Moon Foundation, was registered as a charity in 1974. Its stated objects are, broadly, the advancement of monotheistic religion, education and other general charitable purposes. The other registered charity is the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, registered in 1968. Its object is
to promote the Christian faith by the worship of God and the study, teaching and practical application of divine principle and in particular to support, expand and advance Christian Unity throughout the world".
Since registration, these charities have, as they are required to do, submitted copies of their accounts to the commissioners and these are open to public inspection in the Central Register of Charities.
I understand from the Charity Commissioners that there has been a series of complaints to them about the activities of these charities, in particular about the life-style of their adherents and their methods of fund-raising. While these complaints stem from an understandable anxiety on the part of many people—

parents of converts, parish councils near the Unification Church's centres, and members of the clergy, amongst others —the Charity Commissioners have not been presented with any evidence that these charities have acted in breach of their trusts. I know that, if any such evidence were forthcoming, the commissioners would investigate it very closely and take whatever action was found to be necessary.
Having explained the position on the charitable status of these organisations, I should like to make a number of general observations. My hon. Friend has expressed concern—and indeed I think he has been wise to emphasise this aspect of the matter—about the effect the activities of these bodies have on individual people, especially young people. He has drawn attention to what he believes are psychological dangers and harmful effects upon families. He has claimed that children, particularly vulnerable and impressionable teenagers, are split off from their families, that they are forced, through psychological pressure and other techniques, to devote their whole lives, and any financial resources they possess, to Mr. Moon's organisations. My hon. Friend has forwarded to us several case histories, some of which are harrowing to read—cases of hardship and distress, the agony of parents and the disillusionment of young people.
The first question which must be asked is whether the activities of these bodies are within the law. Has any crime been committed? This is not a matter for the Government to judge, but it is most important that anyone who has evidence which might suggest that a criminal offence has been committed should make it known to the police. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in forwarding information available to him, and my ministerial colleagues and I have made sure that any information passed to us which could conceivably bear on a possible criminal offence does go to the police. I must, however, say that the information that has been provided so far has not, in the judgment of those responsible, warranted prosecution for any major criminal offence. But there have been a few prosecutions on minor charges connected with street collections.
If these organisations keep within the law, it is a very serious matter indeed to


suggest that the Government should take action against them none the less. My right hon. Friend and I may as individuals take the view that the doctrines advanced by Mr. Moon are lunatic. We may be particularly suspicious of the motives of people who, while claiming to benefit humanity, have substantially enriched themselves. But these are matters of opinion, and surely it is one of the principles of a free society that people may propagate ideas which the majority of us do not share and do not like.
If the Government as a Government took action against organisations which they regarded as wrong-headed or even worse, we should be living in a rather different kind of society. The cost of

such freedom is that some people will spend their money foolishly, be led astray by charlatans and even misunderstand the motives and feelings of their families and true friends. But when we decided that people should be treated as adults from the age of 18, this meant that they had the right to make their own choice on the way they wished to lead their lives and to make their own mistakes.
There is, of course, a wider context—namely, the international one.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 23rd February 1977

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


MRS. JOYCE BUTLER in the Chair


Armstrong, Mr. Ernest (Under-Secretary of State for the Environment)
Hughes, Mr. Roy (Newport)



Hunt, Mr. John (Ravensbourne)


Clegg, Mr. Walter (North Fylde)
James, Mr. David (Dorset, North)


Cowans, Mr. Harry (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)
Le Marchant, Mr. Spencer (High Peak)



MacCormick, Mr. Iain (Argyll)


Crowther, Mr. Stan (Rotherham)
More, Mr. Jasper (Ludlow)


Dean, Mr. Joseph (Leeds, West)
Mudd, Mr. David (Falmouth and Camborne)


Durant, Mr. Tony (Reading, North)



Gould, Mr. Bryan (Southampton, Test)
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton, West)


Grocott, Mr. Bruce (Lichfield and Tamworth)

GENERAL RATE (PUBLIC UTILITIES) BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the General Rate (Public Utilities) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
This Bill fulfils promises made in reply to Questions in the House in August and October last year that legislation would be introduced as soon as possible to validate some formula rating orders which had inadvertently been allowed to lapse, and to correct a mistake which had been made in another order. The lapsed orders prescribed the formulae which should have applied to the National Coal Board, mines and quarries generally, and statutory docks and harbours. The order requiring correction is the one which prescribed a new formula for the gas industry from 1st April 1976.
This is a short Bill, but because it deals with complicated matters it is by

no means simple. I shall attempt briefly to explain as simply as I can the main provisions of the Bill.
Clause 1 deals wth the lapsed orders. In common with many public utilities, the National Coal Board, mines and quarries and statutory docks and harbours are rated by formulae, since normal methods of valuation would be very difficult to apply. Such formulae are often determined under order-making powers to avoid having to come to Parliament with a Bill every time an amendment is needed. This is the case for the industries in question, and the order-making powers were contained in Section 35 of the General Rate Act 1967. Five orders were made either under this section or under the section in the Rating and Valuation Act 1961 which became Section 35 on the consolidation of rating law in the 1967 Act, and they are listed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
Section 35 of the 1967 Act was superseded by Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974, and the 1974 Act quite


properly repealed Section 35. The Act contained no saving for the orders already made under Sections 35, but it gave power to include savings of that kind in commencement orders bringing parts of the Act into operation. Unfortunately, the commencement order bringing the repeal of Section 35, among other provisions, into operation failed to make the necessary saving for the Section 35 orders. Those orders have thus been void since 1st April 1974, the date when the repeal of Section 35 came into operation.
This means that the property occupied by the NCB and other mines and quarries are now, and have been since 1974, rateable in accordance with the ordinary rating provisions of the General Rate Act 1967 and not, as was certainly intended, in accordance with the formulae prescribed in the lapsed orders. A new order for docks and harbours, made under Section 19 of the 1974 Act, came into effect on 1st April 1976. Thus, docks and harbours were rateable in accordance with ordinary rating provisions in 1974–75 and 1975–76 but are now rateable under the new order.
All interests affected have acted on the assumption that the orders have remained in force. To leave matters to be sorted out under the present law would cause a large number of amendments to valuation lists, involved negotiations, and probably litigation, to no good purpose.
Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, provides that any order made under Section 35 shall not be affected by the repeal of that section by the Local Government Act 1974, and furthermore that all such orders shall be deemed to have been made under Section 19 of the 1974 Act.
Additionally, the clause provides for one of the revived orders—the Docks and Harbours Valuation Order 1971–to be revoked from 1st April 1976. This is because the order was superseded on that date by the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1976. The 1971 order was not revoked at that time because it was realised that it had already lapsed.
Clause 2 deals with the error made in the Gas Hereditament (Rateable Values) Order 1976. This order specifies a method for determining the rateable value of the British Gas Corporation from 1st April 1976 onwards. It does this by applying a formula to the earlier value specified in

the General Rate Act 1967 but unfortunately, when the formula was devised, the fact that the 1967 value had been substantially increased by order in 1972 was overlooked.
Although the current order refers to the value specified in the 1967 Act, we are advised that this reference must be taken to mean the 1967 figure as amended by the 1972 order. This gives a rateable value of about £150 million instead of the intended £60 million. Although it is the £60 million which, as broken down in accordance with the prescribed formula, now appears in the valuation lists, the entries in the lists have not been calculated in the manner required by law and valuation officers could be compelled to insert the higher rateable values in the valuation lists. Thus, the British Gas Corporation could find itself being liable to pay two and a half times as much as Parliament clearly intended.
Clause 2 amends the order to specify the intended value of £60 million in place of the existing incorrect formula, and this amendment is retrospective to 1st April 1976. Additionally, we are taking the opportunity of ensuring that the enabling power, Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1974, allows a figure to be specified instead of a formula. This is dealt with in Clause 4. I am sure hon. Members will join me in greeting this latter provision with some relief, since it should result in at least some simplification of rating formulae that the House may have to consider in the future.
Clause 3 provides for the indemnification of rating authorities, valuation office officials and all other persons against any consequences incurred as a result of the errors rectified by Clauses 1 and 2. Valuation officers have been responsible for maintaining valuation lists in accordance with the orders in question, and rating authorities have been levying rates on those values. All those concerned in such activities have proceeded on the basis that the errors have not been made.
The net result of these measures will be to ensure that the rates on the industries concerned have been paid, and will be paid, in accordance with the provisions previously agreed by Parliament. The proposals will not injure the ratepayers concerned. They have acted on the assumption that these errors have


not been made, and the intended rateable values have been accepted.
I apologise for the fact that this Bill is necessary. In mitigation, I can only say that the law for which my colleagues in the Department and I are responsible is vast and is constantly changing. That is not to suggest that we should take such matters lightly. Far from it. We shall continue in our attempts to ensure that such amending legislation is not found to be necessary. I hope that the brief and clear explanation which I have given will commend itself to the Committee.

10.38 a.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: We greet this Bill with some reservations, though we recognise that it is necessary to honour what was said in the House. I must, however, comment that it illustrates the way in which we prepare our legislation. We do not always get it right when we ought to get it right, and this is something of which the House should take more recognation. We should not find it necessary to come back and do this sort of thing. We have heard the words "overlooked" and "forgotten" and other similar words, and I do not think that this is satisfactory.
There is no doubt that it is a complicated Bill which is difficult to understand by anybody's standards. The formula requires tremendous mathematical ability and imagination to understand it. It is also arbitrary in that it settled, without much option, a complex formula. it illustrates again the difficulties of the whole rating system.
The Minister has told us that the public utilities have continued to be rated as though this Bill was in existence. I hope that that is so, and I shall be grateful for his assurance on that. I am asking this question only out of concern that local authorities may suddenly lose more money. If I can be assured that that will not happen, I shall be grateful.
The Bill shows once again that we should not have postponed the revaluation, which was put off by the Government recently. It was put to the House that a revalation should be commenced, but it was then put off. This was a mistake because it makes continual difficulties for valuation officers, who have less and less evidence

on which to settle the valuation of anything. This is one of the great difficulties for valuation officers, and I think it a pity that we did not do the revaluation which has been put off.
Layfield in his report expresses strong views about rating public utilities, and I shall make two small quotations:
Local authority associations have suggested that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory
in rating public utilities, and that they
would prefer some form of independent arbitration.
I think that that should be considered when the Government look at the Lay-field Report and make their own rating proposals.
There may be an argument for reverting to a more commercial type of rating for public utilities. There is a danger with the present rating system that public utilities will hold on to properties and land because they receive rather favourable treatment in rating. If, however, they were commercially rated they would look at their sites more carefully in order to save money and might decide to get rid of them. To release more land and property from public utilities, might be a good thing. This is something at which we can look when we debate the Layfield proposals.
There is no doubt that there is an urgency about the whole rating question. A Bill like this highlights the urgency of debating the Layfield Report and making concrete proposals on rating and whatever re-rating system the Government propose.
The public have had enough of the present rating system. The Opposition have had strong views on the matter. We have urged the Government to have the report discussed as early as possible. I know that the inquiry is proceeding at the moment, but it is time that we had a debate in the House on the Layfield Report, to be followed by concrete proposals, so that the public may know what is to happen.
Otherwise, in general terms, we accept the Bill. It is necessary. We must have it to ensure that the system works properly. The Opposition have no intention of dividing on the matter.

10.42 a.m.

Mr. Armstrong: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). I confirm that we, and valuation officers themselves, have acted as though the orders were in force. There will be no cost to rating authorities or to ratepayers. I give that assurance readily.
It is true that revaluation was postponed because of consideration at Lay-field. All I can say is that the Layfield Report is under consideration. We all have, of course, criticisms of the rating system, but the trouble comes when we have to suggest alternatives. That is when the argument begins. The truth

is that there are no easy options for raising the money necessary for our public services. I take the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite about the rating of public bodies, but this Bill is necessary in order to rectify the matters which I raised in my opening speech. I hope that the Bill can now be accepted for Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the General Rate (Public Utilities) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Chairman)
Dean, Mr. Joseph


Armstrong, Mr.
Durant, Mr.


Clegg, Mr.
Gould, Mr.


Cowans, Mr.
James, Mr. David


Crowther, Mr.
Taylor, Mrs. Ann